BBC Play of the Month (TV Series) An Ideal Husband (1969) User Reviews

An Ideal Production

[grahamclarke · 9/10 · 14 August 2006]

While "An Ideal Husband" makes for enjoyable viewing, despite the Wildean witticisms, it's a notch below "Lady Windemere" and "Earnest". The themes of trust, reputation and pride are well essayed and yet when all is said and done the lasting impression is something of a pleasant and enlightening trifle.

To make more of it, fine acting is required. Oliver Parker's 1999 surprisingly successful version had Rupert Everett, Colin Firth and Julianne Moore delivering competent performances and yet it still failed to elevate the play above its intrinsic quality.

This 1969 BBC production does just that. With a uniformly excellent cast, Wilde's play receives the best possible treatment. Jeremy Brett from the very first shot is spot on as Lord Goring. Dinah Sheridan and Keith Michell lend a depth to their roles while Susan Hampshire provides some light comic moments. Margaret Leighton, in one of her all too rare screen performances simply makes the part of Mrs.Chevely her own.

Reissued in a box set of the BBC Wilde collection, this is a must for all his fans.

Jeremy Brett sparkles as Lord Goring

[sissoed · 8/10 · 28 December 2006]

I've seen three video/film versions (this 1969, the 1998 Wilby/McDowell, and the 1999 Everett/Blanchett) and have read the original Wilde play. The great strength of this version is Jeremy Brett's amazing performance as Lord Goring. He is full of energy and wit, and you can read his emotions and thoughts flashing across his face, expressing his quick-thinking, sensitive mind even as his spoken lines are contradictory and almost meaningless. This version may put-off some viewers because it is a rather early television production, that lacks the realistic sets and lighting of contemporary motion pictures, but it is well worth making the mental adjustment and enjoying it for what it is.

The chemistry between Goring and Mabel is also the best of the three versions. The actress playing Mabel, Susan Hampshire, is the most attractive and witty of all three versions, and her repartee with Brett signals the kind of witty interactions that fill Wilde's most famous play, The Importance of Being Earnest.

The major problems with this version are, first, that the actress playing Cheveley is considerably older than Brett, making it very unlikely that they would have been engaged ten years before the events in the play, and second, that this version cuts the end of the play. In this version, Sir Robert and Lady Chiltern decline the invitation for Sir Robert to join the cabinet, and Goring makes no attempt to change their minds; and Sir Robert raises no objection to Goring marrying Mabel, meaning that there is no need for Lady Chiltern to confess that her pink-paper-letter really was intended for Goring, not for Sir Robert as Sir Robert mistakenly believes. Thus, in this version, the happiness of Sir Robert and Lady Chiltern, which was originally built on a deception he perpetrated (about the source of his fortune) is now built upon a deception she perpetrated (about the real recipient of her letter). That is not as satisfying a result as in Wilde's original or as in the other two video/film versions. I suspect that the cut was forced on the producers by time constraints with their "Play of the Month" TV format.

In sum, of the three video/film versions, this one probably comes closest to capturing the feel that Wilde wanted to achieve -- the wit and sparkle of the acting is uniformly better than in both the other two versions, the characters are closer to what Wilde intended than are the characters in the 1999 Blanchett/Everett version, and the setting is the proper period and is in London, rather than contemporary rural England as in the 1998 McDowell/Wilby version. But the loss of the ending -- perhaps inevitable given the time constraints of scheduled broadcast television -- costs this version a significant part of the meaning Wilde intended to convey.

excellent version of a clever play

[didi-5 · 8/10 · 3 January 2008]

With a stunning cast (Margaret Leighton, Keith Michell, Dinah Sheridan, Susan Hampshire, Jeremy Brett) this adaptation of Oscar Wilde's play is witty, clever, and extremely engaging. Without playing too strongly for comedy (which can work with this play), it manages to bring out the sharpness of the lines and the strength of the characters, particularly those of Lord Goring and Mrs Cheveley.

This play is Wilde at his best and TV at its most excellent. You forget you are watching something made up and root for the characters, caring what happens to them. Perhaps the best of the TV and film versions of this story.

brilliant

[thomas-391 · 10/10 · 25 September 2005]

I adored this film and would recommend it to anyone. If you like good acting, great costumes and scenery well then this is the film for you. The acting is excellent and you almost forget that you are watching actors. This film is a great "Whos who" in British acting. The beginning of the film will make you want to see the whole thing. The first person we see is Jeremy Brett and he is perfect in the role of Lord Goring he is handsome, witty and charming. If you like Oscar Wilde I recommend you also watch "The Picture of Dorian Gray" in which Jeremy Brett also appears as the painter Basil Hallward. The film is the most accurate portrayal of any Oscar Wilde films I have ever seen.

It's a comedy a la Chekov, more somber than most of Wilde.

[fisherforrest · 10/10 · 24 August 2006]

True, there are a lot of Wilde's usual quips downgrading late Victorian society to the ridiculous, but one senses that here he is being much more serious than usual. We get a look at dirty politics, people who are willing to gain wealth by any underhanded means, and air-heads who only deign to look at the corruption around them when it touches themselves too closely. One of the characters is even guilty of the crime of "insider trading". Some things never change! There is also a look at people with a better character, but perhaps too much better. They set impossibly high standards that make no exceptions for human frailty. And then there is the villainess hoist on her own petard, as they say, whom in the old melodramas we would be invited to hiss. Not here, though. Read on only if you don't mind having some of the denouement revealed.

We are given a very competent cast, beautiful sets colourfully photographed, in fact the best, to my mind, of the "Play of the Month" series. But the star of the piece, is the totally unscrupulous manipulator played by that great British actress, Margaret Leighton. "Mrs. Cheveley" is surely a total sociopath. We learn she stole from her classmates at school, she has in the not too distant past stolen a valuable broach/bracelet from a hostess she visited, she accumulated wealth by conspiring in unscrupulous schemes with an international financier, and at present she is blackmailing an MP to force him to advance in Parliament a fraudulent canal building scheme. Can you countenance such an one without nausea? Well, Margaret portrays this hussy so charmingly and beautifully, I found myself actually hoping she would succeed! She doesn't of course, but if she isn't hailed into court and prosecuted, she won't exactly be living in chill penury. The lady just likes the best for herself. Doesn't everyone?

Very good, second best film of Wilde satire

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 11 March 2014]

"An Ideal Husband" is Oscar Wilde's wonderful satire and spoof of English society in the late 19th century. It has been made into a film half a dozen times. If the 1999 movie had not been made, this 1969 BBC production for TV would surely rank number one. It is a very good film from most standpoints. The acting is superb, as is the directing. The script may be the truest to the original, as at least one other reviewer has commented. And the cast is a list of some of the top actors in England at the time.

By all means, I recommend that movie buffs watch this edition of "An Ideal Husband," given the chance. But for those who haven't seen any of the versions of this great comedy, I recommend watching this one first and then the 1999 movie, starring Rupert Everett. The 1947 film with Michael Wilding is also very good, and the later TV versions are OK. But none of those can compare to either of these two films.

It may not seem fair in this review to compare it to the other, 1999 film. But, comparing the strengths and weaknesses of one with the other is the best way I know to help others choose between films.

In general, I think all the actors but one were better suited for their roles in the 1999 film. As good as Jeremy Brett is in the role of Lord Goring in this earlier version, I don't think his persona matches Wilde's character as well as does Rupert Everett. A big difference is in the energy. While the cynicism, wit and satire are an even match with the two actors, Brett is full of much energy most of the time. It seems hardly fitting for one who is supposed to lead such a slothful life. Everett, on the other hand, is slower, far less energetic, and casual. He truly gives the air and impression of a self-centered dandy who leads a listless life of pleasure and sloth.

Most of the other leads in the 1999 film also have pluses. Julianne Moore gives a much stronger portrayal of a conniving, untrustworthy and nasty woman than does Margaret Leighton as Mrs. Cheveley. Jeremy Northam tops Keith Michell as Sir Robert Chiltern. Cate Blanchett is a more convincing and believable Lady Chiltern than is Dinah Sheridan. John Wood is much better than Charles Carson as Lord Caversham. Wood puts some bombast into the character, where Carson seems quite meek. And Peter Vaughan has a decided edge over Erik Chitty as Phipps. Vaughan's expressions and manners lend a nice touch to the comedy, compared to Chitty's role that is fairly matter-of-fact.

The one big exception I would make in the best casting is in the role of Mabel Chiltern. Susan Hampshire gets a decided nod for her portrayal in this 1969 film, over Minnie Driver's role in the 1999 movie. Driver is an excellent actress, but in this role, her persona is one of an intelligent young woman who seems wise to the machinations of Goring. I think Wilde meant her to be a little more flighty, and just a little naive. Susan Hampshire plays the part spot on in this early version.

One other general observation applies to the two protagonist women – Cheveley and Lady Chiltern. They are too old in this film. Both actresses look older than their counterpart men – Goring and Lord Chiltern. Also, this early TV version does seem stagy at times, and has the obvious limited sets.

Most of the lines were the same in both productions, true to the original. But I did notice some lines in each version that weren't in the other one. There were also a couple of variations in the plot. The ending is the biggest difference. In all of these cases, I think the 1999 movie is much funnier and even cleverly interpreted in a couple of places. I think the few lines omitted in the 1999 film from this 1969 version weren't very essential or even helpful to the play. But the considerable revision of the ending in the 1999 movie was excellent. It ended the story with a smash. If that's not the way Wilde wrote it originally, I think he would heartily approve of the change.

Vanity Fair and Embezzlement

[Dr_Coulardeau · 8/10 · 2 July 2019]

We can never know with this particular comedy if Oscar Wilde is being witty or satirical, and no matter how hard you may try, you will not know. Of course, in Oscar Wilde's days, it must have been mostly witty and just a little bit satirical. The dandy was once again at his best showing how superficial the aristocratic society of Great Britain was, but at the same time he was showing the charm of this aristocratic society, the charm and the wickedness of these aristocrats since they are also the worst cheaters with life and politics, and the worst possible blackmailers, meaning terribly cruel and at the very same just terribly bad at it.

So, what can survive?

First the very idea that to be well born, meaning in the aristocracy, rich or poor who cares really, provided you have a good title, then the rest is nothing but calculation and conspiration in the withdrawing wings; to be well born and well educated, meaning in one Ivy League university of Great Britain, as they would say in New England, meaning in a public school that is, of course, private and hyper super califragilisticexpialidociously selective; to be well born and well educated is no guarantee that you will be honest. In fact, you have to be slightly dishonest to get the fortune you may not have because idleness runs in the blood of the aristocracy and doing nothing does not provide you with a rich lifestyle.

And our main character is just such an embezzler, but it is supposed to remain secret, except that a blackmailer appears and decides to earn some money without doing anything except menacing not an innocent man, but a guilty man who can be ruined if his guilt becomes public. Isn't that a shame. But there is always a good friend who will be able to save the day and destroy the plot. The irony of the satire is that the blackmailer is a woman and the dishonest victim is a man.

But then what's left in life? Nothing except idleness. And boredom. Then the males and the females have only one objective and it is to get married. Do not expect anything lurid, ole-ole, frantic or simply marginal. We are not in Oscar Wilde's time going along with gay marriage, LGBTQI adventure, and if there is anything trans then it is a transvestite in comedy and farce, to trap the other, the one you want to marry but you're not quite sure yet. But Oscar Wilde does not seem to like anything like transvestic transvestment. A dandy for sure, and quite a few of his characters are slightly on the dandy side, spending more time to choose a buttonhole every morning and for any occasion than to seriously read the Times, without any pictures, or the news from the Stock Exchange.

It is in a way funny, well-acted, beautifully set and produced, but frankly, it is so superficial that even the most careless newborn would not be able to get drowned in this little rivulet of a brook right at the end and bottom of the garden.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU