Producers: Jack H. Skirball and Bruce Manning. Copyright 9 December 1946 by Hallmark Productions, Inc. A Jack H. Skirball-Bruce Manning production, released through Universal-International. New York opening at Loew's Criterion: 7 December 1946. U.S. release: November 1946. U.K. release: 5 May 1947. Australian release: 29 May 1947. 8,710 feet. 96½ minutes. Australian release title: MAGNIFICENT LADY.
SYNOPSIS: Quaker's daughter, forced into an unwilling marriage, is freed by the death of her husband to pursue political ambitions in Philadelphia. Time: around 1790-1814.
COMMENT: The stills from the film look great - Ginger, radiant in lavish period costumes with feathered hats, set against colorful backgrounds crowded with picturesque props - but the film itself is something of a disappointment.
Borzage's slow, turgid direction does nothing to enliven Irving Stone's embarrassingly pedestrian script which reduces the sweep of major historical events to common¬place domesticities. Mind you, we should be grateful - for the one time Mr Stone attempts to demonstrate the sterner facts of Constitutional freedom, he veers into unintended parody.
Nonetheless, despite the handicaps of unsympathetic direction and a soap-operettish script, the players manage to provide some measure of interest. Admittedly, actual acting is often poor. Ginger gives one of the least convincing impersonations of her career and often seems to be floundering in too-deep waters (although it's doubtful if even a Helen Hayes could carry off the contrived oratory of the climax). And David Niven too seems ill-at-ease with Aaron Burr. The transition from charming patriot to psycho czar is handled with a fair degree of skill but doesn't quite succeed. Even a normally solidly reliable actor like Burgess Meredith has obvious difficulty with such unworldly dialogue (particularly in his scene with Rogers in the empty Hall of Congress).
Usually, having chided the principals for minor shortcomings, the critic can point to the support players as faring better. Oddly enough, with only one or two exceptions (Peggy Wood, Francis McDonald), this is not the case here. Most of the character cast seem even more uncomfortable and less-suited to their roles. Some are nothing short of inept.
Despite its major problems in script, direction and acting, Magnificent Doll has been produced on a remarkably lavish budget. Photography, sets and costumes are always so attractive that even at its dullest or most juvenile, the picture is worth watching. In a way, all the money was wasted. The sets and the big crowd scenes could have had much more impact in the hands of a stronger, less jaded director. (But then what forceful director would agree to film such amateurish, historically laughable tosh as Magnificent Doll?)
SYNOPSIS: Quaker's daughter, forced into an unwilling marriage, is freed by the death of her husband to pursue political ambitions in Philadelphia. Time: around 1790-1814.
COMMENT: The stills from the film look great - Ginger, radiant in lavish period costumes with feathered hats, set against colorful backgrounds crowded with picturesque props - but the film itself is something of a disappointment.
Borzage's slow, turgid direction does nothing to enliven Irving Stone's embarrassingly pedestrian script which reduces the sweep of major historical events to common¬place domesticities. Mind you, we should be grateful - for the one time Mr Stone attempts to demonstrate the sterner facts of Constitutional freedom, he veers into unintended parody.
Nonetheless, despite the handicaps of unsympathetic direction and a soap-operettish script, the players manage to provide some measure of interest. Admittedly, actual acting is often poor. Ginger gives one of the least convincing impersonations of her career and often seems to be floundering in too-deep waters (although it's doubtful if even a Helen Hayes could carry off the contrived oratory of the climax). And David Niven too seems ill-at-ease with Aaron Burr. The transition from charming patriot to psycho czar is handled with a fair degree of skill but doesn't quite succeed. Even a normally solidly reliable actor like Burgess Meredith has obvious difficulty with such unworldly dialogue (particularly in his scene with Rogers in the empty Hall of Congress).
Usually, having chided the principals for minor shortcomings, the critic can point to the support players as faring better. Oddly enough, with only one or two exceptions (Peggy Wood, Francis McDonald), this is not the case here. Most of the character cast seem even more uncomfortable and less-suited to their roles. Some are nothing short of inept.
Despite its major problems in script, direction and acting, Magnificent Doll has been produced on a remarkably lavish budget. Photography, sets and costumes are always so attractive that even at its dullest or most juvenile, the picture is worth watching. In a way, all the money was wasted. The sets and the big crowd scenes could have had much more impact in the hands of a stronger, less jaded director. (But then what forceful director would agree to film such amateurish, historically laughable tosh as Magnificent Doll?)