William Gillette wrote Secret Service for the stage, and played the lead role in it, Captain Thorne, in 1895. When the Civil War broke out he was only a child, but having lost a brother in the conflict, this story is likely to have been important for him. He wrote his plays very carefully, giving full details on sound effects (he patented a device for cavalry hoofs), stage setting and lighting. He was known for his way to set furniture so that the audience felt like being inside the play. And as an actor, he was known for a distinctive style, because he played in a gesture-restrained and naturalistic manner very different from the melodramatic trend of most of his contemporaries.
Gillette, who loved theater from his childhood, wrote plays in other genres, such as The Comforts of Home or Too Much Johnson (a comedy later filmed by a young Orson Welles and team). In his later years he also did some radio broadcasts, like a seemingly lost one of his most famous impersonation, detective Sherlock Holmes, which he adapted for the stage with Conan Doyle´s approval and played over and over for more than 30 years to audiences who never got tired of him. Even in a silent movie.
But Secret Service is a drama, and a suspenseful one from its beginning to the very last minute. Set in 1861, it tells the story of two Northern Secret Service agents trying to send false orders, and of their Southern counterparts trying to prevent it. A tense tempo marks the development, with occasional breaks provided by secondary characters Caroline Mitford and the youngest Varney boy. The father, at the battlefront, is a Southern general. An elder brother is lying in bed at home, severely wounded, while the youngest is willing to go to battle, specially since Caroline turned him down because of not having enlisted. Then there´s their sister Edith, who is falling in love with Captain Thorne, brought to their home wounded and now recovered and about to leave. The mother deals with it all amidst bandage-making and housekeeping. Cannonades in the background and action in the foreground. The ethics of war and personal ethics collide, bringing difficult choices to deal with. Difficult and dramatic choices. And an open ending.
This being told, this filmed version has both strong and weak points, as has the 1931 one starring Richard Dix. It is faithful to the written play in both dialogues and stage setting. It succeeds in creating a tense athmosphere all over. Only both Captain Thorne and his opponent Mr. Arrelsford are too melodramatically played by John Lithgow and Charles Kimbrough respectively (watch Richard Dix for a contrast). The telegraph officer in charge, a secondary role, plays it in a much more normal way. In fact, it is Mrs. Varney who is completely in her place in all of her appearances. Her daughter Edith is played by a young Meryl Streep with both sensitiveness, charm and intelligence, and we can understand her moments of despair and not consider them as overacted. The youngest Varney brother is an impulsive teenager, so it is understandable that he gets carried away. Caroline Mitford is also well portrayed by Mary Beth Hurt, if at first the character, maybe because the way she drags on her Southern accent, may seem a bit more than simple-minded. Between the acts, musical interludes with Civil War songs are performed by some the actors, including Meryl Streep who looks lovely and sings beautifully. As a whole, it is an interesting adaptation, and it would have been much better if it had not been overacted by the main masculine characters, both physically and in the way they deliver their dialogues (and this also predisposes to take party, while the original play has one of its strengths in that it does not). The way the author tried to avoid.
But Secret Service is a drama, and a suspenseful one from its beginning to the very last minute. Set in 1861, it tells the story of two Northern Secret Service agents trying to send false orders, and of their Southern counterparts trying to prevent it. A tense tempo marks the development, with occasional breaks provided by secondary characters Caroline Mitford and the youngest Varney boy. The father, at the battlefront, is a Southern general. An elder brother is lying in bed at home, severely wounded, while the youngest is willing to go to battle, specially since Caroline turned him down because of not having enlisted. Then there´s their sister Edith, who is falling in love with Captain Thorne, brought to their home wounded and now recovered and about to leave. The mother deals with it all amidst bandage-making and housekeeping. Cannonades in the background and action in the foreground. The ethics of war and personal ethics collide, bringing difficult choices to deal with. Difficult and dramatic choices. And an open ending.
This being told, this filmed version has both strong and weak points, as has the 1931 one starring Richard Dix. It is faithful to the written play in both dialogues and stage setting. It succeeds in creating a tense athmosphere all over. Only both Captain Thorne and his opponent Mr. Arrelsford are too melodramatically played by John Lithgow and Charles Kimbrough respectively (watch Richard Dix for a contrast). The telegraph officer in charge, a secondary role, plays it in a much more normal way. In fact, it is Mrs. Varney who is completely in her place in all of her appearances. Her daughter Edith is played by a young Meryl Streep with both sensitiveness, charm and intelligence, and we can understand her moments of despair and not consider them as overacted. The youngest Varney brother is an impulsive teenager, so it is understandable that he gets carried away. Caroline Mitford is also well portrayed by Mary Beth Hurt, if at first the character, maybe because the way she drags on her Southern accent, may seem a bit more than simple-minded. Between the acts, musical interludes with Civil War songs are performed by some the actors, including Meryl Streep who looks lovely and sings beautifully. As a whole, it is an interesting adaptation, and it would have been much better if it had not been overacted by the main masculine characters, both physically and in the way they deliver their dialogues (and this also predisposes to take party, while the original play has one of its strengths in that it does not). The way the author tried to avoid.
