Plymouth Adventure (1952)

Short on adventure and long on talkiness, this 1952 big-budget release from MGM sinks faster than you can say "Mayflower." Yes, one of the most famous of famous ships is the main character, and it's only slightly more wooden than the cast that climbs aboard and ventures to the new world. That cast is led by perennial grump Spencer Tracy, who commands the ship and hates all the passengers, until their goody-goodness and preaching about God and opportunity makes him see the error of his ways. Leo Genn gives the film's best performance as the passenger with the best oratorical skills. He also happens to be married to Gene Tierney, who's given absolutely nothing to do until she gets to commit suicide, probably to escape from the boredom of the film, in a plot twist that makes absolutely no sense since nothing was done by the screenplay up to that point to establish it.Speaking of the screenplay, the writers must have been paid by the word, because this particular group of passengers talk a LOT about all the things that aren't interesting, while few of the things that would be interesting about a story like this never happen. The film got the lavish Technicolor treatment from MGM and a sea storm garnered it an Oscar for Best Special Effects, but even if the pilgrims themselves were not dead on arrival, the movie certainly is.Grade: C-

This is a very fine movie! As I am not American these pilgrims have not meant so much to me - although I recognized a name or two - but now I feel I know them and understand them a little. Not only because of what I learned in the movie itself, but from the reading I have done after wards because it awakened my interest and curiosity. Good historical movies shall work just like that - and for a good cause a little poetical license is acceptable! Because without the unconsummated and tragic love story, also if it did not happen in reality, this movie would not have been half as thrilling.Some reviewers here have complained that Spencer Tracy looks too old to play Captain Jones, but I find this strange as the real Captain Jones was the same age as Tracy... and as Jones also partook of the hardships on board, not only on this famous voyage but in a whole life at sea, and in fact died only a year after he returned to England, HE probably did not look like a spring chicken either... I also must admit that I at least find Tracy attractive in this part!The best thing about this movie is the dialogue; there are many lines that are as beautiful as poetry. Captain Jones' words when he talks of his broken ship, his lonely nights and his feverish longing for Mrs Bradford, is some of the best dialogue I have ever heard in a love scene written for a movie. Very pungent and erotic with a feeling of impending doom...The feeling of being transported to the time period is very good. The sailing part is as far as I can see accurate - you get to see a little of the sailors really working the sails, pulling up the anchor etc. (I would have wanted more of this). The photo is beautiful and there are impressive storm scenes etc..There is one thing lacking though: I would have expected more religious ardor from the passengers. More spirit. After all: these are the founding fathers!!! I think they come out as too ordinary, too preoccupied with practical matters like any migrating peasants.

Spencer Tracy is tied right up there with Cary Grant as being my favorite actor. And I like (not love) this film. It certainly has a lot going for it -- Tracy, Gene Tierney (whose co-starring role is pivotal, yet smaller than one might expect), Van Johnson, and Leo Genn. The scenes at sea are done well, particularly the storm sequences. Yet, somehow, this film seems to come up just a bit short.While it's definitely fictionalized, there's a lot of history here, too. I tend to read up on historical films, and this one seems more realistic with the history than one is used to. Oddly enough, Van Johnson -- in my view an "okay" and "pleasant enough" actor -- probably comes off best of actor in this film. Spencer Tracy comes off waaaaay too dour for most of the film, although that does facilitate his redemption after landing at Plymouth; I would have to say that in regard to that characterization, perhaps the director overdid it. Gene Tierney plays who role well, but I think she might have been disappointed in the scope of it. There appears to be at least a possibility that her character did indeed commit suicide in real life, as portrayed in the film. Leo Genn does well as William Bradford (husband of the Tierney character). Lloyd Bridges isn't quite a swashbuckler here -- too earth for that, but plays his role nicely.So what is it that's missing here. Well, perhaps its that this is a story that should have been inspiring, yet in this rendition seems depressing. A number of Clarence Brown's (director) films are quite notable and enjoyable, and he had worked with Tracy (as Edison) before. But this time the results are disappointing. Interestingly, although this was his last film (1952), he lived another 35 years. Perhaps he realized he no longer had the spark.

Other reviewers talk like Plymouth Adventure is fiction. They think Clarence Brown is like James Cameron, who cares more about the story conforming to a movie than the other way around. In other words, they have no idea what integrity is.Though much was documented - and is adhered to by the plot points - much is conjecture, and this can be subject to dramatic license. Of course, the dialog is up to the screenwriter and director. We can discuss this, but for me, the language and dialog weren't at all problematic, nor was the lush cinematography, in itself (see below).I have only two quibbles:I should have preferred to see Plymouth Adventure in black and white. The Pilgirms were a black and white lot who established a black and white society.I don't mind myth-making, because I think myths can be metaphors for the truths behind them. Of course, myths can be used in malign ways, as we know from the Nazis. Though not malign, the myth of the Pilgrims is of questionable value, since we know that the Pilgrims were seeking, in the New World, freedom, but freedom to establish their own tyranny. This is different from the myth, say, of George Washington and the cherry tree, since Washington was a true archetype of integrity. Nevertheless, rather than making a debunking movie showing the Pilgrims as a kind of proto-Taliban, perhaps it would be better to let their qualities of courage and resourcefulness stand, and leave the myth to benign neglect.