The Howards of Virginia
Tags: historical fiction

Plot synopsis:
The film is set in colonial Virginia between the 1750s and 1781. Matt Howard (Cary Grant), orphaned son of a backwoods Virginia farmer, uses his connections with his schoolmate Tom Jefferson to get employment as a surveyor and a grant of a thousand acres on the Shenandoah. While surveying the Williamsburg estate of planter Fleetwood Peyton (Cedric Hardwicke) he meets with Peyton's sister Jane (Martha Scott). For both of them it is eternal love at first kiss, and despite differences of class and culture, and the enmity of Fleetwood,
Jane marries Matt and follows him to his cabin in the west country.Within a few years, the estate is thriving and the cabin on the hillside has become a gracious colonial home. There are minor conflicts with neighbors and over manners, but the Howards successfully raise a clutch of children. The one major instability is over the eldest son, Peyton Howard, whose inherited lameness reminds Matt of his hated brother-in-law, and whom Matt therefore cannot love or even bring himself to touch. As time passes, and conflict with England looms, Matt is sent by his neighbors to the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg, where he and Fleetwood represent the extreme rebel and Tory positions.In 1776, the entire family moves back to Williamsburg as war threatens, and after the passage of the Virginia resolution for independence, Matt leaves to fight the British under General Washington. A few years later, after quarreling with their uncle over their father's rebel stand, Peyton and his younger brother James are expelled from the Peyton home, and they too go north to join up with their father, and are accepted as dispatch riders for Washington.Listening unseen to his two sons arguing over the merits of the rebellion, Matt Howard realizes that Peyton is closer to his own principles and political beliefs than his beloved James, and he tries to communicate his love. But war gets in the way: Peyton is sent with a message for Lafayette, and we see him shot off his horse by a British patrol. Matt and the rest of the army trudge south to meet the British army, which is bottled up near Yorktown. When the army reaches Williamsburg, Matt forces his way into Washington's presence and asks after Peyton: his mission had been to draw the British fire so that other messengers could get through, but he was merely wounded and is recuperating back at home.At Fleetwood Peyton's house Matt finds his son and they reunite, together with their mother and the rest of the Howards. The odd man out is Fleetwood, who has become cynical and bitter at the outcome of the war and what he sees as the destruction of Tidewater society.The film was commercially unsuccessful despite an excellent cast; Cary Grant was out of his element playing a backwoods American, and the script, though literate, was not really strong. The political conflict, though real enough, is never argued intelligently: Matt and Fleetwood seem to be merely acting out their class positions. And the class conflict within the marriage never really surfaces, as Jane's backwoods estate is miraculously transformed into a Tara minus all the slaves.The time scheme of the story also seems inconsistent. Matt is 12 when his father is killed with Braddock in the French and Indian War (1755), so he was born in 1743. His sons are supposedly 18 and 16 when they join Washington's army at Valley Forge (1777-8), so they were born in 1760 and 1762. This would require Matt to be 16, or even younger, when he courts Jane Peyton. But neither of them is supposed to be an adolescent, and of course the actors playing them, Cary Grant and Martha Scott, were 35 and 27 when the film was made.

Review: Movies about the American Revolution for some reason have never succeeded as well as those about the Civil War. My guess is that the best of them is Drums Along the Mohawk and that was about one of the more obscure theaters of that war.Like Gone With the Wind, the Howards of Virginia is taken from a rather sprawling novel.
The Howards of Virginia is a condensed version of the novel and some of the characterization has been sacrificed in the screen translation.Nevertheless it's a good story about a fictional Matt Howard from his days as a youth hearing the news about his father's death with Braddock's army in the French and Indian War to just before the Siege at Yorktown.
Of course growing up with Thomas Jefferson, it's not surprising that Howard develops the opinions he does.Cary Grant is cast against type as Matt Howard.
In point of fact if you want to see the real Cary Grant on screen look at None, But the Lone Heart, Gunga Din, or Sylvia Scarlett.
Cary Grant was the best role Cary Grant ever played.If The Howards of Virginia were made 10 years later, Burt Lancaster would have been spot-on in terms of casting.Martha Scott is fine as the Tory girl that Cary Grant woos and wins.
It's quite a culture shock for her coming to the mostly unsettled Shenandoah valley among Grant's frontier friends and neighbors, but her best scenes in the film are at that point.Of course I think both Grant and Scott are acted off the screen when Cedric Hardwicke is on.
As Scott's older brother Fleetwood Payton, Hardwicke is easily the best in the film.
Hardwicke managed to capture all the elements in Fleetwood Payton well as well as his losing his mind as his well ordered aristocratic world tumbles down about him.Richard Carlson is very much what I picture as the young Thomas Jefferson, full of new ideas and quite the rebel against his own class.
My guess is that in the book a whole lot of familiar names made it there, but were not in the screenplay.This is not the American Revolution's Gone With the Wind, but taken on its own terms The Howards of Virginia is good entertainment and does capture some of the motivating spirit behind the Virginia patriots and tories..
Unlike the few other American Revolution films Hollywood has made, this one was both interesting and did an excellent job in conveying WHY the Colonists were rebelling and didn't paint the British as total buffoons or Nazis (like in THE PATRIOT).
As an American History teacher, I must point out that despite coming from Hollywood in 1940, the realism in spirit is quite surprising and I could recommend this to kids, as they'd learn a lot.It was odd to see Cary Grant as a bit of a rag-tag outdoorsman, but he carried it off better than I'd expected.
Plus, his British accent really wouldn't have been out of place in the Colonies at that time.Another big plus for the film was the relationship between Grant and his sons.
Yes, it's a bit manipulative, but I really liked the way the writers dealt with this relationship in the movie.
I love Cary Grant and that's the only reason I kept watching this movie.
It felt like it was about four hours long.While the story itself was pretty solid, the execution was very poor.
Grant's accent wasn't consistent at all (it was there, and then gone, then Irish, then English, then gone again, etc.) and neither he nor his wife appeared to age (despite the movie taking place over 20 years).
I'm a huge classic movie buff (and Cary Grant buff) so I'm glad I watched the movie, but it's not on my list to watch again.
Possibly Cary Grant's worst performance...terribly miscast....
CARY GRANT insisted that he would never do another costume film after THE HOWARDS OF VIRGINIA and it's easy to see why after viewing the film tonight on TCM.
Except for a couple of well played scenes with his sons (TOM DRAKE and PHIL TAYLOR), Grant's performance is way too broad to be acceptable as part of a serious historical epic.Director Frank Lloyd never once tones down Grant's performance and lets the hyperactive Grant overact at any given moment in a role he clearly doesn't know how to play.
At least we do get more restrained work from MARTHA SCOTT as Grant's aristocratic wife and SIR CEDRIC HARDWICKE as her snobbish brother who sides with the British during the Revolutionary War period.Obviously a lot of expense went into creating the right atmosphere for this story of the turmoil surrounding America's independence among the colonies, and there are times when you wish even more had been spent to produce the film in the gorgeous Technicolor of that era.
But the script is a weak one, never able to maintain the sort of interest it should have had over a running time of two hours.The banal dialog that closes the film is about as jingoistic as you can get and enough to make anyone wince.
The story was probably chosen because the producers hoped to make another DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK or GONE WITH THE WIND--but they failed utterly to do so.Summing up: Sad to see Grant so badly miscast and not given proper direction..
I was a bit surprised to see so many other reviewers panning this film, since I had seen it once before and thought it was quite good.
I watched it again, and I still believe it's a far better-than-average costume drama.Several people thought Cary Grant was miscast, and even criticized his British accent.
His character's progression over time, in this film, was believable and, I thought, well done.
I suspect it parallels, in some ways, Grant's life changes from humble British kid to acclaimed Hollywood star.The film itself, with its use of the colonial Williamsburg settings and attention to detail about frontier life, was refreshing, as of course was the excellent casting overall.
I'd recommend it for kids, especially, since what they get for American history class about this period of time is truly awful -- what little there is.I'd give it a solid 8, easily..
Cary Grant doesn't look like he knows quite how to play this guy, and I don't blame him.
The wrong elements of the plot are emphasized, and the character of Matthew Howard is less a complicated man than a simple cypher.It's not a bad movie by any means, but it looks like it's trying desperately to copy "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Gone with the Wind" at the same time.
I give this movie a 6 for Cary's personal magnetism, even in a stifling role like this one..
I had never heard of this movie, but I love movies from the 30s-40s, enjoy watching Cary Grant, and find American Revolutionary history fascinating.I give the producer credit for shooting exteriors on location -- but Cedric Hardwicke provided the only other pleasant surprise.(An over-the-top performance should be expected from a character named Fleetwood.)Cary Grant was just horrible; as others have noted, he adopted a goofy accent and seemed to be on amphetamines; and he never should have been made to wear buckskins and a ponytail, for goodness sake.
Sad that so many Cary Grant fans had their bubbles burst.
Grant could not have played his dapper persona while being from the Shenandoah Valley, especially in scenes with those crude and embarrassing frontiersmen and women.
One reviewer was critical of the director because the irony of Matthew Howard turning into a kind of Fleetwood Peyton was not portrayed.
But from early on in the movie, Tom Jefferson and Matt Howard thought it would be grand to develop the 1,000 acres in the Shenandoah Valley into a PLANTATION.
But Matt Howard didn't want to run at first, and when pressed said he would go if only to improve the roads and bridges and repeal the Stamp Act. He had no thoughts of aristocratic power unlike Fleetwood.Anyone see John Wayne in The Searchers?
I don't know what Cary Grant felt later about the film, but the film is essential now both as a political debate and a period piece.
Read the reviews at the Cary Grant web site: some of them written when the film came out in 1940 when we were allied with England in WW II.
Think about today's political climate, what with tea-partyers (the original Boston Tea party was referred to in the movie) and the current debate on levels of taxation and government controls (the Stamp Act was also a plot element in the movie).
Also, in case there's some doubt, Cary Grant wasn't always perfectly elegant.
"In a string of films he had supporting parts, including the heavy who nearly destroys Marlene Dietrich in Blonde Venus 1932) and Mae West's foil in She Done Him Wrong (1933) and I'm No Angel (1933)." Later in his career, after he had established his elegant style, he played in a couple less-than-exemplary roles, costarring with Jayne Mansfield in 1957 in "Kiss Them for Me" and playing a heartless swindler and a Cockney in 1943 in "Mr Lucky." I don't see why he can't play against type in this patriotic film.
Maybe he was still trying to establish his bona fides as an actor, or he could have believed in the principles of Matt Howard.
In support of the second theory, Cary Grant became an American citizen on June 26th, 1942.
I liked this movie despite the dreadful miscasting of Cary Grant.
Cary looked like he had been on amphetamines, jerky and hyperactive.
Grant realized that his performance was woefully bad and vowed never to do a costume drama again.
Cedric Hardewick, Richard Carlson and Martha Scott were competent in their roles in HOV which contrasted Grant's fiasco..
And even when they came on, they hit their stride later in the movie.The funny thing for me was that the best performances often came from the child actors.
The adult Jefferson was good in general, but did not hold a candle to the portrayal in the HBO John Adams series.Cary Grant is fun to watch.
His accent never quite sounds as rough as it should, but his gruff mannerisms make him convincing enough, so long as you're willing to suspend disbelief.The best element for me was how Cary Grant's character was developed in relation to his family..
Was not that great for a Cary Grant movie.
He is the guy who hands Cary the bottle of booze in the house, then is shown again when Martha Scott comes out of her room and sits at the table.
Cary was too hyper in this film.
All of Cary's other movies more than make-up for this one.
A terrible Cary Grant movie?.
Such a thing as outright disastrous Cary Grant exists in the form of the emotionally unstirring catastrophic period piece which engages top talent for all the wrong reasons.The screenplay remains the biggest fault of the movie, due to mindless indulgence of the writer about Virginian high society and love that comes in the most rigid form of unconvincing passion.
Cary Grant would have been better off fronting his appearance under a different name.
He looks ridiculous in a long haired wig, and with an unconvincing accent, seems an embarrassment amongst the most elegant folk in Virginia.After a succession of brilliant Cary Grant projects at Columbia, the dated ill fate and dull proceeding of this movie makes one wonder at the film's very existence.The best movie of *1927*.
Unbelievable Cary Grant Film.
Never realized that Cary Grant appeared in a film which concerned the American Revolution or that he even was willing to give his talents to this type of film.
I later found out that Cary Grant did not like this role he was playing in the film and made it a point to never appear in such a film.
Many people felt that Cary Grant was not suited for his role in this film and felt he should have turned down this role.
There are great supporting actors in this film which are Martha Scott, (Jane Peyton Howard) and Cary Grant, ( Matt Howard) and also Cedric Hardwicke,(Fleetwood Peyton).
This film deals with the Boston Tea Party which means that the British were enacting a tax on the people of Boston and the people of Boston were very rebellious against such legislation and made the statement, "No Representation with out Taxitation." You must agree this is not really a Cary Grant film, he was placed in a film which he should never had appear in..
We really found this an interesting movie, since we lived near Williamsburg, and are familiar with Virginia history, especially in the Albermarle County and Wiliamsburg/James River areas.
And the story was a good encapsulation of some early American social and political currents.
Pedestrian Revolutionary War drama with a miscast Cary Grant as a young Virginian stirred to rebellion while falling in love with Loyalist Martha Scott.
Also Grant's role doesn't really play to his strengths.
The rest of the cast is decent, with Richard Carlson playing a likable Thomas Jefferson and Cedric Hardwicke being Cedric Hardwicke, which is always great to watch.
Obviously Cary Grant completists will need to see it and maybe Revolutionary War buffs might like it, too..
I am a big Cary Grant fan and have seen many of his films but this is a terrible performance, unlike any of his other films.
However, it must be said that the director shares the blame and should have done a better job of directing Mr. Grant in this movie.
Overall, it is worth watching to get a sense of the events leading up to the Revolutionary War and the war itself and to see Mr. Grant in a role uncharacteristic of his usual fine acting..
In his intro, Robert Osborne said this was one of Cary Grant's least-known films.
A title card then moves us forward 12 years, meaning Matthew should be 21 or 22, but is played by the 36 year old Grant!
The irony that Matthew becomes the very kind of man he despises Fleetwood for being - landowner (and slave owner), politician, member of the upper-crust - is completely lost on Z-Grade director Frank Lloyd.As if he knew he was horribly miscast, Grant tears through this like he's on crack!
Underrated film...superb performance by Martha Scott.
I like to think of this film as Cary Grant forgetting the Cary Grant he was turning himself into...and just acting.
Beginning with "Topper", he was developing the Cary Grant persona, and it showed up in 8 films before this one.
He plays the character Matt Howard.I'm surprised when I see what a low rating this film gets by IMDb reviewers.
I think the reason, perhaps, is that if you are expecting the suave and sophisticated Cary Grant, well, you're going to be disappointed.
Instead, Grant portrays a rather "backwoods" oaf, who does mature as time passes.My main gripe about the film is that it takes place in Virginia (where I lived for over two decades), but many of the exterior shots were clearly photographed in the American west (where I now live) -- Santa Cruz, to be specific.
Sort of like in the movie I watched last week that included all those mountains...in Florida.
This is a powerful film, and overall it does a pretty good job of telling its story within accurate history of the American Revolution.Grant does somewhat overplay his role...but I assume that to be the fault of the director, Frank Lloyd.
Sir Cedric Hardwicke is also excellent as the embittered pro-British father of Martha Scott.
Other roles are also played well, though none of the supporting actors stands out, except for Richard Carlson, who does a nice turn as Thomas Jefferson.I, too, prefer the suave sophisticated Cary Grant, so this film will not make it to my DVD shelf.
115½ minutes.Australian release title: The TREE OF LIBERTY.SYNOPSIS: Backwoods surveyor marries an aristocratic Virginian.COMMENT: How my grandfather would have enjoyed this film!
Admittedly, Cary Grant is atrociously miscast and feels he is obliged to render every line as loudly as possible in a curious mixture of Irish and Cockney accents.
His co-star Martha Scott is also not wholly enjoyable, being both too stiff and too dull for the albeit conventional role of vivacious, lively heiress.Some of the support players are equally maladroit, particularly Richard Carlson's Tom Jefferson, and Irving Bacon, almost unrecognizably miscast as an Olin Howland-type backwoodsman.Nonetheless, ranged on the credit side of the acting ledger, Sir Cedric Hardwicke gives an unforgettably powerful performance as the embittered Fleetwood, one of his most memorable studies in well-rounded heavies.
He sang and danced as part of the Pink Pierrots (French clowns) in the Katharine Hepburn movie Sylvia Scarlett (1935) (see my review about that movie).Cary hums some music in the bathtub, in The Howards of Virginia.
Maybe he just wanted to get a little fun out of this sometimes very serious story.This movie was five years after Sylvia Scarlett.
It was 1940, the year of Cary's The Philadelphia Story (again with Katharine Hepburn).
If you want to see dapper Cary, see Philadelphia Story.Cary was absolutely dapper in The Howards of Virginia.
When Tom Jefferson cleaned him up and put him into a proper Virginia planter's suit of clothing, Cary looked absolutely fabulous.
You people my age may have thought grown-up Tom was familiar: Richard Carlson was on TV in the 1950s in the program I Led Three Lives.Previous to The Howards of Virginia, Cary Grant had made some movies with that fabulous Mae West.
She says, "I'll tell you your fortune." Mae West said she discovered Cary Grant.Cary made a good frontiersman.
To act against Cary's publicly-perceived suave persona in other films, this is what an actor has to do.
He/she has to play against type, if the role calls for it.
It rounds out an actor's portfolio.If you want to see Cary Grant in another unusual costume, see Bringing Up Baby (1938), again with, who else?