The Preacher's Wife (1996) and The Bishop's Wife (1947)
Guess what we watched that night.
My first observation watching it was that I was going to need to rewatch the original if I wanted to have anything more substantive to say than, "yeah, this one's really good, too." Fortunately, the 1947 film is a lot easier to watch online than the remake, which is why you're getting a hybrid article covering both versions.
Looking at them together has the unusual effect of making both seem even better. The films start with the same underlying premise but approach it in such radically different ways they feel like entirely different stories, despite the plots unfolding in more or less the same manner. Neither feels fundamentally inferior, which is a little surprising: typically remakes either supplant the original or pale in comparison, but the changes in point-of-view, tone, and theme are sufficient to make The Preacher's Wife feel like a complete reimagining that enhances elements The Bishop's Wife didn't explore without stepping on its predecessor's toes.
Both movies center around a religious leader, Henry (Courtney B. Vance and David Niven as the titular preacher and bishop respectively), praying for divine guidance during a difficult time. Their prayers are answered with the appearance of Dudley, an angel played by Denzel Washington in the remake and Cary Grant in the 1947 film. In both cases, Dudley masquerades as an assistant to the preacher/bishop, and in both cases they wind up falling in love with that man's wife (Whitney Houston in the remake, taking over for Loretta Young). By the end, the preacher/bishop has changed their outlook, the wife has renewed her commitment to her marriage, and the angel has undergone a difficult journey forcing him to walk away from the woman he loves. As he leaves, all memories of his existence vanish as well, though the preacher's son in the remake remembers the visitor (it was a daughter in 1947, and we're never told what she does or does not recall, though Dudley leaves her a toy angel).
The most immediately apparent change is one of style: the original has the feel of an old Hollywood movie, complete with soundstages and larger-than-life performances. The remake, filmed primarily in New York and New Jersey, is far more grounded. Director Penny Marshall delivers a movie that feels like it's set in our world, or at least a reasonably close facsimile.
The performances match this approach; while there are a number of comedic characters, the leads behave far more realistically than their counterparts in 1947. This is most apparent in Vance's portrayal of Henry as a man struggling to hold on to his faith, family, and hope in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges.
Henry is far more sympathetic in the remake, as well. Niven's bishop was affable enough in the original, but he spends the first half of the film bumbling through obstacles with relatively low stakes. His primary motivation at the start is to raise funds to build a massive cathedral, a goal the audience is never seriously behind (nor is heaven, as the movie ultimately resolves with Dudley convincing both Henry and a wealthy widow the money would be better spent on the needy).
There's an element of Scrooge in all this, of course, though it's worth noting Henry is never a bad man in either version. But in the 1947 film, he's a man who's priorities have become skewed, both in regard to his family and faith. Dudley's intervention ultimately helps correct this.
The 1996 version keeps a little of the Christmas Carol stuff but shifts its bullseye from Henry to Joe, a character loosely based on the wealthy widow from the original but here transformed from a nuisance to a villain (albeit one ultimately redeemed, hence the Christmas Caroling). In the original, Agnes is conditioning her donation on Henry agreeing to turn the planned cathedral into a monument to her late husband. Dudley eventually intervenes, using compassion and reason to convince her the money would be better spent helping the poor. It's a sweet sequence, as much about humanizing her as changing her perspective.
Joe's focus is rooted in money and his own legacy: he wants to build a new church, which Henry initially has no interest in. However, he's also acquired the deed to the old one and plans to tear it down for profit. Dudley's intervention has a much more menacing tone: he reveals himself and implies a divine reckoning if Joe fails to change his ways. He doesn't outright say Joe will be damned to hell, but it's in the subtext.
This change is the only one that feels like a significant misstep to me. The story doesn't need a villain and trying to wedge one in is a distraction from the far more interesting dynamics between Henry, Dudley, and Julia. It's certainly not a deal breaker, but it's one element of the movie that dates it (the '90s were notorious for wedging antagonists into these sorts of things).
The changes to Henry work far better. His arc in the original is relatively straightforward: he needs to realize he's been neglecting his wife and daughter and that his fixation with a planned cathedral doesn't demonstrate the values he professes. But in the remake, Henry is a far more nuanced character, and his arc is much more subtle. He doesn't want a new church and mainly agrees out of exhaustion and in the hopes this will rid him of Dudley. His focus is on the community from the start; in a sense this is his problem. He views the problems around him as his responsibilities alone, but at the same time he's lost faith in his community, his wife, and himself. When a teenage boy in his congregation is arrested, Henry tries to help, but it's not until Dudley helps him realize the boy is actually innocent that he's able to succeed.
Likewise, Henry needs to have faith in Julia, both as a partner in the community and as his wife. This is where the remake really shines, because part of this hinges on giving Julia an arc of her own. While I like Young's Julia in the original, the character didn't really display much agency. At the end of the movie, she does realize that her and Dudley have developed feelings for each other, and she's the one who finally seems to dismiss him, but until then the plot treats her more as an object for the male characters to love than a person herself.
In the remake, she's well aware of her feelings towards Dudley from the start, and she's not oblivious to those he has for her. Likewise, she's lost patience with her husband and tells him as much. This doesn't mean she no longer loves Henry or that she necessarily wants anything more to happen between herself and Dudley. When her mother calls her out for spending so much time with Dudley, Julia dismisses the idea... though she doesn't deny the attraction. And as the movie goes on, it becomes clear she's tempted. But ultimately her love for Henry wins out, thanks in part to Dudley's help.
But only in part. Houston's Julia makes her own choices and confronts her own reality in a way Young's wasn't permitted. Her relationship with Dudley is explored as much from her point-of-view as his: there's a reason these things are usually better off with women directing (and by "these things" I mean "movies").
Both versions include the idea that once an angel's job is done, those he interacted forget him altogether (though, again, Henry's son remembers him in the remake, a phenomenon the grownups write off as an imaginary friend). One of the remake's more interesting changes is to tone down the depictions of these interactions, causing Dudley to fade into the background a bit. Grant's portrayal in 1947 makes the character feel like the centerpiece of the film - he's bold, exciting, and the focus of attention whenever he's present. In contrast, Washington's Dudley is much more subdued, shifting the emotional focus to the mortal characters. The movie is structured in a way to make him sort of fade into the background, despite his powers.
Interestingly, there are some notable changes to his situation, too. The original portrays him as a Biblical angel, with the knowledge of millennia. But the remake instead tells us he was mortal before becoming an angel. The movie strongly implies he's been dead for about thirty years prior to the events of the film. This of course transforms the character. Despite the religious premise, Grant's Dudley almost feels like some sort of pagan trickster god, while Washington's is a fallible human. I don't think either is inherently better as a starting point, but the change is one of many transforming the movie into an entirely new story.
Both, however, end with Dudley having to walk away. Whether a primal angelic being or a spirit sent back to Earth, he's still an outsider left envying the man he's helping. This is ultimately a love triangle, and that's not a template conducive to unconditionally happy endings.
Well, unless you take the Design for Living approach, but that was probably too tall an order for a movie that needed approval from religious audiences to succeed at the box office in 1996 (and wouldn't have been an option at all under the restrictive codes of the 1940s).
Still, both movies' themes are, at least in some respects, progressive. The movies aren't just borrowing superficial elements from A Christmas Carol - they're promoting similar themes of charity, community, and human connections. The original does walk a bit of a tightrope while doing this. There's a subplot around an expensive hat about Julia learning it's alright to covet material things (and ultimately buy them) I'm guessing was a concession to the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. In addition, the fact Henry and Julia are clearly upper class makes it difficult to take the movie's message seriously in the 1947 film. The remake corrects this: this version of Julia and Henry don't come from money, and the community they serve is clearly struggling.
It's also worth noting the remake is careful to communicate that it's endorsing community and faith, regardless of religion. The opening of the movie clearly shows different religious organizations, strongly implying all are equally valid. The 1947 film could be interpreted to imply something similar, though it's more ambiguous. There's a minor character - a professor who's friends with Julia and Henry - who seems to be an atheist at the start (or at least professes a lack of religion). Granted, by the end, he's heading to church with the rest, but at no point is his lack of faith portrayed as a moral failing. If anything, he's one of the movie's most ethical and likeable characters.
That version also includes a line which may suggest an openness to an expansive view of religion, when Henry discusses Dudley with the aforementioned professor. Henry confides in him that Dudley is an angel and when asked if he's from heaven, Henry says it's unclear. The most likely reading is that this is just a joke suggesting his rival for Julia's affections may be from hell, but you could interpret it as something less sinister and more open ended.
Both films are funny, sweet, and touching, though the ratio of each varies. The 1947 is lighter and more comedic, while the remake leans more on the emotional journey its leads endure. The performances across the board are great, though Cary Grant is the standout in the original. Somewhat surprisingly, Washington didn't feel as quintessential in the remake - he's still fantastic, of course (when has he ever not been?), but the fact he's approaching the role with a lighter touch hands the spotlight to his costars. Houston is fantastic (again, a given), but in my opinion the movie's MVP is Courtney B. Vance, who conveys an extremely complex predicament and emotional journey. I don't think you could do better than Washington or Houston for their roles, but Vance is the only actor I can't imagine the movie working without.
We were much more precious with recommendations when we first reviewed The Bishop's Wife, so a correction on that front is overdue. It's not my absolute favorite of the decade, but it's a fantastic film in its own right. Same goes for The Preacher's Wife. Both films are well worth watching, and miraculously approach the same premise in such different ways you won't be bored seeing them back-to-back.
Comments
Post a Comment