I think Martha Scott was a beautiful, talented woman, and the paucity of her cinematic oeuvre can only be explained by her desire to work on the New York stage. It is a pity that we do not have more films by this compelling actress - especially films that are better than Cheers.
It seems obvious that this movie was patterned after Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Just replace an endearing male main character with a female one and - voilá, another sentimental hit movie! Except the makers of this movie didn't understand or follow the "formula," so Cheers falls far short of its goal. It never achieves the necessary balance in depicting her personal and professional lives. After her first day in class, the film never again shows Miss Bishop teaching. Instead, it focuses on her personal life, where she is not overly sympathetic. Chips spent a brief, happy time with the love of his life. Miss Bishop gets involved with the wrong kind of men, spurning the man who really loves her.
The focus on her personal life starts off well enough with the depiction of her tragic first engagement. When her cad fiancé dumps Scott to elope with her coquettish, self-absorbed cousin, Scott evokes the empathetic sorrow of the audience. The cousin returns, and Scott accepts her with a sense of stoic responsibility. The cousin promptly (and perfunctorily!) dies in child birth, leaving Scott with a baby she raises on her own.
Then she takes up with a new professor. Their farewell scene is intended to inspire the same kind of emotion evoked by Humphrey Bogart's "We'll always have Paris" observation in Casablanca. But this film really hasn't developed their relationship. Besides, the professor is already married (and, unlike Ingrid Bergman, he KNOWS his wife is alive)! He's a cad! Scott knowingly has gotten herself into a no-win situation, and, indeed, she doesn't win. NOBODY will ever remember, "We'll always have Ovieto," as the filmmaker wants.
Somewhere along the line, the niece marries and moves away, and HER daughter comes back to live with Scott, her great-aunt. Calendar pages roll past the screen, different modes of transportation crush flower beds, Scott has brushes with students on the steps of "Old Main," and time generally passes. But nothing of any real character development or plot development happens. She isn't shown in the classroom. She just seems to keep her perpetual suitor, William Gargan, on a leash like a puppy (which is less endearing than pathetic).
She is called on the carpet by the new college president because she won't modernize her teaching techniques. But we have never seen her in the classroom, so we have no idea whether she has been effective. We have no way of knowing whether the president is unreasonable, or SHE is. It is simply a scene. (in the next scene her pal, Gwenn, provides insight that apparently inspires her to change - but we never see how!)
As one commentator noted, two of the testimonials at the end are perfunctory accounts of the earlier, inconsequential brushes Miss Bishop had with those students. A third is offered by a former student on whom Scott actually did have a profound, positive impact in earlier scenes. It also brings to mind one of the few humorous moments in the film. The fourth is offered by a shy woman played by Rosemary De camp. Scott's earlier defense of De camp against charges of cheating is one of only two scenes that show her having a strong, positive impact on the young people at the college. However, except for De camp's expression of continued adoration, none of the former students' remarks is actually a testimonial to Scott as a great role model, mentor or teacher. They are simply remembrances of those casual, brief encounters on the steps of the admin building!
Edmund Gwenn gives his usual professional performance, here as a very sympathetic college president. His relationship with Scott is the best developed relationship in the movie. The coquettish cousin is played well by Mary Anderson. William Gargan is the most sympathetic character in the movie, however his unrequited devotion to Scott is not developed with any depth or insight. It is, thus, rather inexplicable and lacks the emotional impact the filmmakers apparently intend. There is never any extended, profound dialog between Scott and Gargan. She just seems to take him for granted as a dear friend, dissuading any further emotional involvement, but never really telling him to go find another woman. He, on the other hand, seems convinced for most of the movie that "one of these days" Scott will come around. It is a superficial treatment of the central relationship in the movie!
Martha Scott's acting is terrific, convincing us that she does, indeed, age over 50 years despite the use of little makeup to age her. She, however, like every other member of the cast, is just too burdened by a script that doesn't develop the characters or the aspects of her life to bring this movie into clear enough focus for us ultimately to care what happens. She is supposed to be a dedicated teacher, because we are TOLD she is, but we never SEE it - except in a couple of early scenes. Otherwise, her career seems completely secondary to her personal life.
I love so-called "sentimental" films, and I would not fault this one for being sentimental. The problem lies not with its BEING sentimental, but in its FAILURE to be sentimental. Instead it is just an unfocused, flat film. Characters and relationships are just too underdeveloped to appeal to our sentiments. Cheers spends way too little time on character development and way too much time on devices to show that time is passing. But that time is essentially empty for both the film and the audience.
It seems obvious that this movie was patterned after Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Just replace an endearing male main character with a female one and - voilá, another sentimental hit movie! Except the makers of this movie didn't understand or follow the "formula," so Cheers falls far short of its goal. It never achieves the necessary balance in depicting her personal and professional lives. After her first day in class, the film never again shows Miss Bishop teaching. Instead, it focuses on her personal life, where she is not overly sympathetic. Chips spent a brief, happy time with the love of his life. Miss Bishop gets involved with the wrong kind of men, spurning the man who really loves her.
The focus on her personal life starts off well enough with the depiction of her tragic first engagement. When her cad fiancé dumps Scott to elope with her coquettish, self-absorbed cousin, Scott evokes the empathetic sorrow of the audience. The cousin returns, and Scott accepts her with a sense of stoic responsibility. The cousin promptly (and perfunctorily!) dies in child birth, leaving Scott with a baby she raises on her own.
Then she takes up with a new professor. Their farewell scene is intended to inspire the same kind of emotion evoked by Humphrey Bogart's "We'll always have Paris" observation in Casablanca. But this film really hasn't developed their relationship. Besides, the professor is already married (and, unlike Ingrid Bergman, he KNOWS his wife is alive)! He's a cad! Scott knowingly has gotten herself into a no-win situation, and, indeed, she doesn't win. NOBODY will ever remember, "We'll always have Ovieto," as the filmmaker wants.
Somewhere along the line, the niece marries and moves away, and HER daughter comes back to live with Scott, her great-aunt. Calendar pages roll past the screen, different modes of transportation crush flower beds, Scott has brushes with students on the steps of "Old Main," and time generally passes. But nothing of any real character development or plot development happens. She isn't shown in the classroom. She just seems to keep her perpetual suitor, William Gargan, on a leash like a puppy (which is less endearing than pathetic).
She is called on the carpet by the new college president because she won't modernize her teaching techniques. But we have never seen her in the classroom, so we have no idea whether she has been effective. We have no way of knowing whether the president is unreasonable, or SHE is. It is simply a scene. (in the next scene her pal, Gwenn, provides insight that apparently inspires her to change - but we never see how!)
As one commentator noted, two of the testimonials at the end are perfunctory accounts of the earlier, inconsequential brushes Miss Bishop had with those students. A third is offered by a former student on whom Scott actually did have a profound, positive impact in earlier scenes. It also brings to mind one of the few humorous moments in the film. The fourth is offered by a shy woman played by Rosemary De camp. Scott's earlier defense of De camp against charges of cheating is one of only two scenes that show her having a strong, positive impact on the young people at the college. However, except for De camp's expression of continued adoration, none of the former students' remarks is actually a testimonial to Scott as a great role model, mentor or teacher. They are simply remembrances of those casual, brief encounters on the steps of the admin building!
Edmund Gwenn gives his usual professional performance, here as a very sympathetic college president. His relationship with Scott is the best developed relationship in the movie. The coquettish cousin is played well by Mary Anderson. William Gargan is the most sympathetic character in the movie, however his unrequited devotion to Scott is not developed with any depth or insight. It is, thus, rather inexplicable and lacks the emotional impact the filmmakers apparently intend. There is never any extended, profound dialog between Scott and Gargan. She just seems to take him for granted as a dear friend, dissuading any further emotional involvement, but never really telling him to go find another woman. He, on the other hand, seems convinced for most of the movie that "one of these days" Scott will come around. It is a superficial treatment of the central relationship in the movie!
Martha Scott's acting is terrific, convincing us that she does, indeed, age over 50 years despite the use of little makeup to age her. She, however, like every other member of the cast, is just too burdened by a script that doesn't develop the characters or the aspects of her life to bring this movie into clear enough focus for us ultimately to care what happens. She is supposed to be a dedicated teacher, because we are TOLD she is, but we never SEE it - except in a couple of early scenes. Otherwise, her career seems completely secondary to her personal life.
I love so-called "sentimental" films, and I would not fault this one for being sentimental. The problem lies not with its BEING sentimental, but in its FAILURE to be sentimental. Instead it is just an unfocused, flat film. Characters and relationships are just too underdeveloped to appeal to our sentiments. Cheers spends way too little time on character development and way too much time on devices to show that time is passing. But that time is essentially empty for both the film and the audience.