Leslie Howard was a great actor whose life and career were cut short by World War II. But, "Berkely Square" is not one of his great or even very good performances. While some modern reviewers seem to relish it as a romance, I couldn't get past the fantasy, and the glaring incongruities in it and the screenplay. The story is built around the fantasy. And that's where I think Howard's character and portrayal are off. It's where his character in the past doesn't ring with his character in the present at the film's start.
Here is a descendant of Peter Standish, of colonial America, with the same name and living in the early 20th century. He has become mesmerized with living in the British home and learning of his ancestral cousins whom his namesake had traveled from America to visit more than a century and a third before. He gets all this from a diary kept by namesake Standish, and by papers and other documents and things he has found in the home. He is fascinated by it, and looks forward to going back to that time, which he tells his fiancé is imminent.
Then at the certain 5:30 hour on a certain day, with rain and a thunderstorm outdoors, modern Peter is transported to the time in the past when ancestor Peter is to arrive in London from America. Only, the scenes open with the Pettigrew family in a tither and anticipating his arrival. He didn't get that out of his ancestor's diary. So, the first incongruity is that the modern Peter takes the place of his ancestor. They looked exactly alike, as established in the start, and no one in England had seen him before anyway. But, now the modern Peter appears in place of the ancestor. So where's the ancestor, if this was going back in history? He came over on a ship with some other people who would be here later, and they would sense that he's not the same person. Well, the audience knows he's not, but what happened to the ancestor after the ship arrived and before the modern Peter takes his place at the door of the Pettigrew home? This is not one of those sci-fi or fantasies when someone takes over another person's body, and actually replaces that person in his or her time.
Now, so far, there is nothing that would seem to infatuate anyone about a love story here. But remember the serious and anticipating Peter Standish who so looked forward to living in the grand old past. So, when he's there, does he relish going through the things he had read about and knew were to happen? Does he quietly become part of the story and scenes to enjoy them? No, he changes completely. Now he becomes friendly, open and very talkative - blurting out all the things he had read about before they take place in the past to which he has been transported. So, this is a big incongruity in the character. Then, the modern Standish in the place of the ancestral Standish, becomes morose, as the cousins and others become afraid of him because of his strange vocabulary and seeming ability to see into the future.
The latter is somewhat different from the genre of time-travel fantasy and sci-fi films. In most, people are amused and interested in different language, and wonder about it. I realize that all of this is the story and film as it was made. But the incongruities of the story and screenplay make it hard to get past that and into a fabricated love story or romance for which there is no other accounting. Peter's ancestor married Kate and they had three children. Yet, Kate calls off their engagement out of fear for him. He and Helen fall in love and she believes that he has transported back in time, so she won't marry anyone else when he goes back to the future. So, when Peter returns to the present he has not lived the story as he read in his ancestor's diary. Yet, the ancestor must then have appeared to the family and gone through the whole thing again - perhaps with their memories erased? And, then Kate marries him and they live happily ever after.
Only now, back in the present, the modern Peter Standish can't marry his fiancé, but must always love Helen, who's grave he has visited at the nearby church. If there aren't enough incongruities to detract from an imagined and/or hoped for romance and love story here, then it must have been a dream. I was waiting and suspecting an ending that would really wrap it all up and make sense. That Peter Standish had become so overwrought with his addictive infatuation with his family's history, that he had gone mad. Too bad, because that would have been the perfect ending, instead of a melodramatic soap opera finish.
Not that many people have seen this Fox Film of 1933 in modern times. I suspect that most won't find it to be more than average, or a little strange; but not a big romance or love story. It wasn't a big box office hit in its day, during the Great Depression. But, it didn't appear to be a flop either. My guess is that film history buffs and fans who know about and appreciate Leslie Howard's acting will want to see "Berkely Square." Heather Angel, who plays Helen, is little known even to cinephiles. Ditto for all of the leads who play members of the Pettigrew family. Some of the supporting cast are well-known from the period - Alan Mowbray, Samuel Hinds, Dave Terrence and Ferdinand Gottschalk.
Here is a descendant of Peter Standish, of colonial America, with the same name and living in the early 20th century. He has become mesmerized with living in the British home and learning of his ancestral cousins whom his namesake had traveled from America to visit more than a century and a third before. He gets all this from a diary kept by namesake Standish, and by papers and other documents and things he has found in the home. He is fascinated by it, and looks forward to going back to that time, which he tells his fiancé is imminent.
Then at the certain 5:30 hour on a certain day, with rain and a thunderstorm outdoors, modern Peter is transported to the time in the past when ancestor Peter is to arrive in London from America. Only, the scenes open with the Pettigrew family in a tither and anticipating his arrival. He didn't get that out of his ancestor's diary. So, the first incongruity is that the modern Peter takes the place of his ancestor. They looked exactly alike, as established in the start, and no one in England had seen him before anyway. But, now the modern Peter appears in place of the ancestor. So where's the ancestor, if this was going back in history? He came over on a ship with some other people who would be here later, and they would sense that he's not the same person. Well, the audience knows he's not, but what happened to the ancestor after the ship arrived and before the modern Peter takes his place at the door of the Pettigrew home? This is not one of those sci-fi or fantasies when someone takes over another person's body, and actually replaces that person in his or her time.
Now, so far, there is nothing that would seem to infatuate anyone about a love story here. But remember the serious and anticipating Peter Standish who so looked forward to living in the grand old past. So, when he's there, does he relish going through the things he had read about and knew were to happen? Does he quietly become part of the story and scenes to enjoy them? No, he changes completely. Now he becomes friendly, open and very talkative - blurting out all the things he had read about before they take place in the past to which he has been transported. So, this is a big incongruity in the character. Then, the modern Standish in the place of the ancestral Standish, becomes morose, as the cousins and others become afraid of him because of his strange vocabulary and seeming ability to see into the future.
The latter is somewhat different from the genre of time-travel fantasy and sci-fi films. In most, people are amused and interested in different language, and wonder about it. I realize that all of this is the story and film as it was made. But the incongruities of the story and screenplay make it hard to get past that and into a fabricated love story or romance for which there is no other accounting. Peter's ancestor married Kate and they had three children. Yet, Kate calls off their engagement out of fear for him. He and Helen fall in love and she believes that he has transported back in time, so she won't marry anyone else when he goes back to the future. So, when Peter returns to the present he has not lived the story as he read in his ancestor's diary. Yet, the ancestor must then have appeared to the family and gone through the whole thing again - perhaps with their memories erased? And, then Kate marries him and they live happily ever after.
Only now, back in the present, the modern Peter Standish can't marry his fiancé, but must always love Helen, who's grave he has visited at the nearby church. If there aren't enough incongruities to detract from an imagined and/or hoped for romance and love story here, then it must have been a dream. I was waiting and suspecting an ending that would really wrap it all up and make sense. That Peter Standish had become so overwrought with his addictive infatuation with his family's history, that he had gone mad. Too bad, because that would have been the perfect ending, instead of a melodramatic soap opera finish.
Not that many people have seen this Fox Film of 1933 in modern times. I suspect that most won't find it to be more than average, or a little strange; but not a big romance or love story. It wasn't a big box office hit in its day, during the Great Depression. But, it didn't appear to be a flop either. My guess is that film history buffs and fans who know about and appreciate Leslie Howard's acting will want to see "Berkely Square." Heather Angel, who plays Helen, is little known even to cinephiles. Ditto for all of the leads who play members of the Pettigrew family. Some of the supporting cast are well-known from the period - Alan Mowbray, Samuel Hinds, Dave Terrence and Ferdinand Gottschalk.