Karl Owen Tunberg and His Contribution to Cinema

This Website is devoted to Karl Tunberg and his career as a screenwriter, and offers information about the more than forty major motion picture screenplays of which he was either co-author or sole author. Members of Karl Tunberg's family are creators and caretakers of this Website, and are making every effort to present the most accurate information available. The details offered here about Karl Tunberg's life, professional activities, and film credits have been derived from records kept by the Writer's Guild of America, legal documents, conversations with Karl Tunberg himself, information provided by family members, materials preserved in the Margaret Herrick Library of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and other archives.

(Website under construction)

Webmaster: ktunbergwebmaster@gmail.com

Karl Owen Tunberg, 1907 (Spokane, Washington U.S.A) - 1992 (London, England, UK)

Karl Tunberg: photo taken between about 1946 and 1950.

See More Images

Karl Owen Tunberg, the future screenwriter, was born in Spokane, Washington, on March 11, 1907 to Karl Emil Tunberg (1874-1962) and Centennial 'Cenna' Independence Firebaugh (1876-1967). Karl Owen had an older brother (of the same parents) named William, who also became a screenwriter as an adult. A brief word about Karl Owen's parents will not be out of place. Karl Emil was of Swedish ancestry, but born in America. His father, Alex E Tunberg (1852-1934), was actually born in Sweden, but as an early teenager migrated with his parents to Nebraska, U.S.A. Here the family settled, and Alex became a fairly prosperous farmer and later a businessman. Karl Owen's mother, Centennial 'Cenna' Independence Firebaugh, was born in Tolono, Illinois to William Firebaugh and Elizabeth Hay, and received her name from the fact she was born on 4 July, 1876 - the first centennial 'birthday' of the United States of America! Karl Emil and 'Cenna' married in 1904 and moved to Washington state, where they lived for a while, first in Spokane, then in Seattle. Then, perhaps about 1915, Karl Emil and 'Cenna' seem to have been separated. 'Cenna', with her two sons William and Karl, migrated to California.

The family lived for a time in Santa Barbara, but eventually settled in Los Angeles. There Karl attended Hollywood High School, UCLA and USC. Karl Tunberg was destined to spend much of his life in Los Angeles, though he also lived and worked for many years in London, England. Largely in connection with his film making projects, Karl also traveled throughout Europe, visited China, Malaysia, Japan, and the West Indies. He was married three times and had five children. He served as president of the Screen Writers Guild from 1950 to 1951.

His earliest writings included short stories, and a novel entitled While the Crowd Cheers, which was published in 1935 by the Macaulay Company. Very soon, Karl Tunberg turned his story-telling talents to screenplays. Starting in 1937 Karl was on contract as a screenwriter for Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation under Darryl Zanuck. In the early 1940s Karl Tunberg moved his seat of operations to Paramount Pictures. In the first phase of his career Tunberg typically collaborated with other writers, especially with Darrell Ware, a deft composer of musical comedies. Eventually (in the later 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s) Karl worked more frequently on his own. In the late 1940s he made two films for Universal Studios, with a brief return to Fox (Love That Brute, 1950). This was followed by a series of large films for MGM in the 1950s, including historical epics such as Beau Brummel, the Scarlet Coat, and Ben Hur, and two big-production films for United Artists in the early 1960s (Taras Bulba [in collaboration with Waldo Salt], The Seventh Dawn). During this period he occasionally functioned as producer as well as writer – as in the case of Count Your Blessings (1958). In the 1960s Karl also wrote screenplays for two major MGM productions, I Thank a Fool (1962) and Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? (1967). Finally, in the early 1970s Karl Tunberg began writing segments for television series, but he never felt as much at home in the television medium as he had in the creation of large-screen motion pictures. The most famous screenplay authored by Karl Tunberg was probably the one he wrote for the 1959 epic, Ben Hur, but Karl Tunberg always told those close to him that he regarded Beau Brummel (1954) as his best work.

Co-Author:

1. You Can't Have Everything. Harry Tugend, Karl Tunberg, Jack Yellen, 1937: based on a story by Gregory Ratoff.

Directed by Norman Taurog: Starring Don Ameche, Alice Faye: Production company 20th Century Fox

2. Life Begins in College. Karl Tunberg and Don Ettlinger, 1937: based on stories by Darrell Ware.

Directed by William A. Seiter: Starring Joan Davis, Tony Martin, Gloria Stuart, The Ritz Brothers: Production company 20th Century Fox

3. Sally, Irene and Mary. Don Ettlinger, Karl Tunberg, Jack Yellen, 1938: first made as a silent film in 1925: based on play by Eddie Dowling.

Directed by William A. Seiter: Starring Fred Allen, Joan Davis, Alice Faye, Tony Martin, Gregory Ratoff, Marjorie Weaver: Production company 20th Century Fox

4. Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. Don Ettlinger, Karl Tunberg, 1938: based upon the children's book Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm by Kate Douglas Wiggin.

Directed by Allan Dwan: Starring William Demarest, Jack Haley, Bill Robinson, Randolph Scott, Shirley Temple, Helen Westley: Production company 20th Century Fox

5. Hold that Co-ed. Don Ettlinger, Karl Tunberg, 1938.

Directed by George Marshall: Starring John Barrymore, George Murphy, Marjorie Weaver: Production company 20th Century Fox

6. My Lucky Star. Screenplay by Harry Tugend and Jack Yellen, 1938: from a story by Don Ettlinger and Karl Tunberg.

Directed by Roy Del Ruth: Starring Richard Greene, Sonja Henie, Cesar Romero: Production company 20th Century Fox

7. Shipyard Sally. Don Ettlinger, Karl Tunberg, 1939-1940 : from a story by Gracie Fields, Thomas J. Geraghty, Val Valentine.

Directed by Monty Banks: Starring Gracie Fields, Sydney Howard, Norma Varden: Production company 20th Century Fox

8. I Was an Adventuress. Don Ettlinger, John O’Hara, Karl Tunberg, 1940 : based on a French film “J'étais une aventurière (1938)”.

Directed by Gregory Ratoff: Starring Richard Greene, Peter Lorre, Erich von Stroheim, Vera Zorina: Production company 20th Century Fox

9. Public Deb No. 1. Don Ettlinger, Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1940.

Directed by Gregory Ratoff: Starring Ralph Bellamy, Brenda Joyce, George Murphy: Production company 20th Century Fox

10. Down Argentine Way. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1940 : based on a story by Rian James and Ralph Spence.

Directed by Irving Cummings: Starring Don Ameche, Betty Grable, Carmen Miranda: Production company 20th Century Fox

11. Tall, Dark, and Handsome. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1941.

Directed by H. Bruce Humberstone: Starring Virginia Gilmore, Charlotte Greenwood, Caesar Romero: Production company 20th Century Fox

12. A Yank in the R. A. F. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1941: from a story by Melville Grossman.

Directed by Henry King: Starring Betty Grable, Tyrone Power: Production company 20th Century Fox

13. Weekend in Havana. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1941.

Directed by Walter Lang: Starring Alice Faye, Carmen Miranda, John Payne, Cesar Romero: Production company 20th Century Fox

14. My Gal Sal. Seton I. Miller, Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1942 : from a story by Theodore Dreiser.

Directed by Irving Cummings: Starring Rita Hayworth, Carole Landis, Victor Mature: Production company 20th Century Fox

15. Orchestra Wives. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1942 : story by James Prindle.

Directed by Archie Mayo: Starring Lynn Bari, Marion Hutton, George Montgomery, Cesar Romero, Ann Rutherford: Production company 20th Century Fox

16. Lucky Jordan. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1942 : story by Charles Leonard.

Directed by Frank Tuttle: Starring Alan Ladd, Sheldon Leonard, Helen Walker: Production company Paramount Pictures

17. Standing Room Only. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1943 (released 1944?) : story by Al Martin.

Directed by Sidney Lanfield: Starring Paulette Goddard, Fred MacMurray: Production company Paramount Pictures

18. Dixie. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1943: adapted by Claude Binyon; story by William Rankin.

Directed by A. Edward Sutherland: Starring Bing Crosby, Dorothy Lamour: Production company Paramount Pictures

19. Bring on the Girls. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1945: story by Pierre Wolff.

Directed by Sidney Lanfield: Starring Eddie Bracken, Veronica Lake, Marjorie Reynolds, Sonny Tufts: Production company Paramount Pictures

20. The Shocking Miss Pilgrim. George Seaton, 1946 (in some sources the release date is given as 1947): story by Ernest Maas and Frederica Maas, with contributions to screenplay by Karl Tunberg and Darrell Ware.

Directed by George Seaton: Starring Betty Grable, Dick Haymes: Production company 20th Century Fox

21. Kitty. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1945/1946: based on novel by Rosamund Marshall.

Directed by Mitchell Leisen: Starring Paulette Goddard, Ray Milland: Production company Paramount Pictures

22. Love that Brute. Karl Tunberg, Darrell Ware, 1950: with contributions by John Lee Mahin.

Directed by Alexander Hall: Starring Joan Davis, Paul Douglas, Jean Peters, Cesar Romero, Keenan Wynn: Production company 20th Century Fox

23. Night into Morning. Leonard Spigelgass, Karl Tunberg, 1951.

Directed by Fletcher Markle: Starring Nancy Davis, John Hodiak, Ray Milland: Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

24. The Law and the Lady. Leonard Spigelgass, Karl Tunberg, 1951: based on the play “The Last of Mrs. Cheyney,” by Frederick Lonsdale.

Directed by Edwin Knopf: Starring Greer Garson, Fernando Lamas, Michael Wilding: Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

25. Because You’re Mine. Leonard Spigelgass, Karl Tunberg, 1952: based on a story by Ruth Brooks Flippen and Sy Gomberg.

Directed by Alexander Hall: Starring Mario Lanza, Doretta Morrow, James Whitmore, Bobby Van: Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

26. Scandal at Scourie. Norman Corwin, Leonard Spigelgass, Karl Tunberg, 1953: based on a story by Mary McSherry.

Directed by Jean Negulesco: Starring Donna Corcoran, Greer Garson, Walter Pidgeon: Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

27. Valley of the Kings. Robert Pirosh, Karl Tunberg, 1954: inspired by Gods, Graves and Scholars by C. W. Ceram.

Directed by Robert Pirosh: Starring Eleanor Parker, Robert Taylor: Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

28. Libel. Anatole de Grunwald and Karl Tunberg, 1959: based on a play by Edward Wooll.

Directed by Anthony Asquith: Starring Dirk Bogarde, Olivia de Havilland, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Paul Massie, Robert Morley: Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

29. Taras Bulba. Waldo Salt and Karl Tunberg, 1962: based on a novel by Nikolai Gogol.

Directed by J. Lee Thompson: Starring Yul Brynner, Tony Curtis: Production company Harold Hecht Productions & United Artists

30. Where Were You When the Lights Went Out. Everett Freeman and Karl Tunberg, 1968: based on a play by Charles Magnier.

Directed by Hy Averback: Starring Lola Albright, Jim Backus, Doris Day, Robert Morse, Patrick O'Neal, Terry Thomas: Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Television Credits

1. How do I Love Thee. Everett Freeman and Karl Tunberg, 1968: based on book by Peter Devries.

2. Woman in the Shadows (Mannix). Karl Tunberg, 1971.

3. Frenzy (Bonanza). Karl Tunberg and Preston Wood, 1971.

4. The Moving Target (Mannix). Karl Tunberg, 1971.

5. Murder by Moonlight (Cannon). Karl Tunberg, 1972.

6. Doctor and Mister Harper (Medical Center). Karl Tunberg, 1972.

7. Tio Taco, M.D. (Medical Center). Karl Tunberg, 1972.

8. End of the Line (Medical Center). Karl Tunberg, 1972.

9. A Life at Stake (Medical Center). Donald Brinkley and Karl Tunberg, 1973.

10. Edge of the Web (Mannix). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1974.

11. The Quasar Kill (Cannon). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1975.

12. Interception (Bronk). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1975.

13. A Home is not a House (Movin' On). Jimmy Sangster, Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1975.

14. The Drone (Spencer's Pilots). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1976.

15. The Crop Duster (Spencer's Pilots). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1976.

16. The Curandero (The Blue Knight). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1976.

17. The Cult (Kingston). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1977.

18. In Hot Weather the Crime Rate Soars (Lanigan's Rabbi). Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1977.

19. Hitch-hiking Hitch (Chips). Bruce Shelly, Karl Tunberg and Terence Tunberg, 1978

SYNOPSES, ANALYSES AND OTHER MATERIAL PERTAINING TO INDIVIDUAL SCRIPTS (in which Karl was sole writer)

Up in Central Park: A Musical Comedy

Karl Tunberg produced and wrote the screenplay for this film adaptation of a Broadway musical play. The stage version was authored by Herbert Fields and Dorothy Fields, with music by Sigmund Romberg, and produced by Michael Todd.

The film, filled with songs, dances, and amusing scenes, is a story of the Irish immigrants Rosie Moore (played by Deanna Durbin) and her father Timothy, who almost immediately after their arrival at Ellis Island get involved with the henchmen of the corrupt racketeer Boss Tweed (played by Vincent Price). The Tweed ring is prepared to pay Timothy (and, we understand, many other immigrants as well) to cast fake votes for Oakley,Tweed’s puppet candidate for mayor of New York. But the connection between Tweed and the Moores doesn’t stop there. Tweed fears that Rosie has overheard some of his illicit schemes for the ‘improvement’ of Central Park. As it happens,Tweed is uneasy about the spread of rumors, because he knows that John Matthews, a crusading reporter for the New York Times, is determined to expose the illegal actions of the Tweed ring. So Tweed decides to cultivate the Moores by making Timothy the superintendent of Central Park with a high salary. John Matthews, the ever inquisitive reporter, senses a new source of information in person of the new Park superintendent, who is a simple man, unused to urban manners – and has never even learned to read! Matthews also makes the acquaintance of Rosie, with whom he falls in love. When Matthews entices from Timothy the unsavory information that Tweed uses animals from the Central Park zoo to supply food for his personal table, and Matthews publishes this information, Tweed retaliates by removing Timothy from his position as Superintendent of Central Park. Rosie intervenes personally with Tweed to restore her father to his post, and from this point there develops a potentially romantic connection between Tweed (who is married, but estranged from his wife) and Rosie. Gradually Rosie is inclined towards Tweed and away from Matthews, especially when Tweed uses his connections to promote Rosie to the operatic stage. This is a fulfillment of dreams for Rosie, who has always won praise for her natural ability in singing.

Meanwhile Matthews succeeds in bringing to Timothy’s attention some of the stories of woe told by those who have been the victims of Tweeds rackets. Timothy turns against Tweed and fears for his daughter’s future. After several complications, Matthews and Timothy manage (with the aid of a liberal supply of whiskey) to gain the confidence of Oakley, mayor of New York in name only, but in fact puppet and mouthpiece for Tweed. Oakley confesses all he knows, and with his help the New York Times publishes a wide ranging exposé of the Tweed ring. All of Tweed’s associates flee, and Tweed himself, though his precise intentions are never revealed, seems at the end to be about to follow them when he urbanely takes his leave of Rosie and explains that the big plans he had conceived for her cannot be fulfilled.

In the end, Rosie, her father, and Matthews are reunited.

The Broadway musical drama, which was a charming tale in its own right and well adapted to the theatrical stage, differs in many ways from the film version. We may view these differences partly as a result of the need to adapt the story to the motion picture medium, but partly also as a manifestation of the film writer’s interest in developing four lead characters Rosie, Timothy, Tweed, and Matthews. The relationship between Rosie and her father is highlighted early in the film, when we see them arrive as immigrants and learn about Timothy’s love for Rosie’s mother, now deceased. In the stage play, we meet Rosie and her father already established in New York and the friendship between Rosie and Bessie (daughter of another man who works for Tweed) is foregrounded. The character of Bessie is entirely missing in the film, in which the attention of the audience is focused more directly on Rosie. In the stage musical, moreover, the character of Matthews as adversary of Tweed is paired with that of Matthews’ associate and fellow opponent of Tweed, the cartoonist Thomas Nast, who worked for Harper’s Weekly. But Nast is missing entirely in the film and the writer focuses on the persona of Matthews. We note too that in the film the character of Timothy, Bessie’s father, is greatly developed. We seem him struggle against his illiteracy – and actually attend a school with six year old children in order to learn to read! We seem him change from a supporter of Tweed, his patron from an early date, into an adversary of Tweed, as Timothy he learns about Tweed’s racketeering and twisting of the laws in order to increase his power and fill his coffers. Perhaps the most significant difference in the two dramatizations may be found in the love interests of Rosie. In the stage version, Tweed engineers Rosie’s career as a singer, but Rosie is wooed away from Matthews by Peters, one of Tweed’s satellites, and she actually marries Peters. In the film, Matthews’ rival for Rosie’s love is Tweed himself. The film version, therefore, not only offers a somewhat more straightforward development, it also presents the antagonism between the two males in a more fundamental light. The male leads are the two essential antagonists in the battle over the exposure of political corruption – as well as being contenders for the love of the same woman. Consequently, the character of Tweed is much larger in the film version. Tweed appears as a ruthless opportunist, who has no real thought for the conventions of fair play -- yet he is almost likeable in his never-failing politeness and urbanity, his imperviousness to verbal assaults from others, his love for beauty, and his ability to retain composure in adversity. The engaging and vivid film character of Tweed is partly due to the skillful acting of Vincent Price, and in even larger part due to the screenwriter, who almost entirely redesigned this character and created his dialogue.

You Gotta Stay Happy: based on a serial by Robert Carson published in the Saturday Evening Post.

A well structured comedy with skillful dialogue. Marvin Payne, played by James Stewart, is a World War II army air force veteran who runs an air-freight business. On an overnight stay in New York he becomes embroiled with newly married Dee Dee Dillwood, played by Joan Fontaine, and her rather rigid and insensitive just-created-spouse. Dee Dee, about to experience her wedding night, has sudden “cold feet” and decides flee her new husband. Marvin Payne, thrown into the situation by chance proximity, becomes Dee Dee’s avenue of escape. She persuades Marvin to take her to California on his up-coming return flight. Once on board the plane, the plot thickens. Dee Dee’s travelling companions are a cigar-smoking chimpanzee, a corpse in a coffin, a embezzler on the run, and two newly married lovers. In the course of the journey, romance develops between Marvin and Dee Dee. During these adventures, Marvin has no idea that Dee Dee is a wealthy heiress and that she actually married the man from whom she fled in New York. When he learns the truth about Dee Dee, he tries to break off the romance, but the force of circumstances and attraction prove too strong to resist.

The plot and characters of “You Gotta Stay Happy” subvert some of the conventions so typical of films of the same era. Contrary to what audiences might expect of the macho hero (even in a comedy), Marvin always comes off second-best in physical confrontations with his adversary, yet emerges the victor anyway because of his empathy for others. And although Marvin scoffs at the idea of being controlled by a woman (even by a woman he loves), it is a woman nevertheless whose control of the situation shows him the way to success and happiness.

The film is based on a story by Robert Carson, published as a serial in the Saturday Evening Post in April, 1948, under the title “You Got to Stay Happy.” Carson’s story is well-written and funny. Karl Tunberg’s adaptation of the story for the film medium was no less adept, and involved some significant changes in plot and characterization.

The most important of these changes pertain to the personal situation and character of the heiress and the development of her relationship with Marvin. In the Post serial story the heiress is engaged to the aristocratic and menacing Count Alexey, from whom she flees to run away to California on Marvin’s plane. Alexey follows her to California and confronts Marvin on arrival at Burbank. But romance develops between Marvin and the heiress en route, and on the journey Marvin learns about her wealth, family and connections. Although Marvin is highly attracted to the girl, he steadfastly resists the idea of marriage, which she proposes, because he is unwilling to marry a woman who has all the money, while he has none. Marvin’s resistance to marriage is only weakened and finally broken, when his colleagues, who are stockholders in Payne Aire (this is the spelling of the title of Marvin’s financially struggling air-freight company in the Post serial), threaten to leave the company unless Marvin drops his scruples and marries the heiress.

In Karl Tunberg’s screenplay the artistocratic count has been replaced by the wooden and insensitive fiancé, whom the heiress actually marries in the beginning of the story. While the story in the Saturday Evening Post serial opens from Marvin’s point of view as he flies into New York, makes his way to the hotel, and is caught up in an encounter with the heiress and her suitor, the film opens with the heiress’ story and her very reluctant wedding (forced by family pressures) to her intended. The audience therefore is fully aware of her true situation from the start, even while Marvin is kept in the dark about her background and identity. Both in the screenplay and in the Saturday Evening Post story romance develops between the two on the flight to California. But in the screenplay, Marvin’s discovery (during a sojourn at a farmhouse after an emergency landing in bad weather) of the fact that the heiress is already married is the reason for an abrupt breaking-off of the romance, and also for the heiress to discontinue her trip to California with Marvin, and to find other means of transport to finish her journey there. From this point on, the development and resolution of the love story in the film differs markedly from that in the Post serial. After Marvin’s arrival in Burbank, he finds that the stockholders in the air-freight company are selling out, and that the hieress has actually bought a controlling interest in the company. Marvin seeks her out to protest this action, but when they actually meet, he cannot resist her. Her former marriage is annulled. She and Marvin will tie the knot – with the hope that the air-freight company, now supported by her wealth, will be able to flourish.

The screenplay diverges from the original in a number of other ways. For example, a forced landing near a farmhouse, followed by hospitality on the part of the farmer towards his unexpected guests, is a feature of both versions. In the Saturday Evening Post story this event is set in South Carolina: in the film it takes place in Oklahoma. The episode in the film is the occasion for added comedy, when a group of native Americans, who are the only people in the region wealthy enough to own a tractor, offer their help in towing Marvin’s plane out of a mud-filled declivity, but only on condition that they can witness the chimpanzee smoke a cigar!

Beau Brummell. Karl Tunberg, 1954: based on a play by Clyde Fitch

George Brummell, an upstart cavalry officer, alienates prince George, the future King George IV, first by his outspoken criticism of military uniforms designed by the prince (for which he is expelled from his regiment), and then by his public attacks on the prince’s extravagant life-style and the state of the kingdom. Later, however, Brummell and the prince are reconciled, especially when Brummell becomes the prince’s supporter and advisor in his conflict with the William Pitt, the prime minister. Part of the conflict revolves around the prime minister’s pressure upon the prince to abandon his mistress, the catholic widow Mrs. Maria Fitzherbert, and to make a marriage that would promote political alliance with a foreign dynasty.

In the dramatization of the screenplay, the prince’s attachment to Mrs. Fitzherbert is paralleled with Brummell’s attraction to Lady Patricia Belham, who is engaged to the prince’s advisor Lord Edwin Mercer. The strong attraction felt for each other by Brummell and Patricia Belham simmers through a large part of the play and bursts into the open during a fox hunting expedition, when Brummell and Patricia (not unlike Dido and Aeneas) are separated from the rest of the party in the forest and begin to embrace passionately. Though the rest of the encounter is left to the imagination, there is little room for doubt as to what transpired. Lord Mercer, aware that something has happened between Brummell and Patricia on the hunting expedition, insists that he and Patricia should cancel their engagement. Patricia, however, vows never to see Brummell again. The engagement is restored. Although Patricia does not quite live up to the letter of her promise never to see Brummell (there are several subsequent meetings between Patricia and Brummell in the play), she chooses the safe path of marriage with Lord Mercer, and not with Brummell.

Caught up in the web of these complicated events, the friendship between the headstrong and emotional prince regent and the outspoken, high-living Brummell grows stronger. Brummell rises to eminence not merely as the prince’s favorite, but also the arbiter of fashion and elegance in the royal court, introducing new styles of clothing for men, including stove-pipe trousers and unpowdered hair. Events come to a head when Brummell devises a plan to help the prince gain independence from William Pitt, who, in order to keep the prince from assuming the role as regent, has been concealing the fact that the prince’s father, the aged king George III, has become insane. At Brummell’s urging, the prince decides to counteract Pitt by having his father officially declared incompetent. The prince is powerfully motivated by the hope that as regent he can change the marriage act, by which a royal prince is prohibited from marrying a Catholic, and thereby make a legal marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert. Together with Brummell and several doctors, he pays a call on the old king, who not only fails to recognize his son, but actually attempts a violent attack upon him. As a result the king is declared insane.

But William Pitt is equal to the challenge: Parliament does not award the prince full powers as regent, even though it does grant him the right to alter the marriage law. When Brummell urges the prince to reject the conditions proposed by Pitt and to demand full rights, the prince flies into a rage and accuses Brummell of using his position to advance himself. The prince and Brummell are henceforth alienated. On the death of George III, the prince succeeds to the throne as George IV. Brummell lacking royal protection and pursued by creditors flees to Calais, where he sinks into poverty and ill health. But he adheres to his principles, even refusing to make money by publishing his memoirs, in fear that such memoirs might harm the king’s reputation. The new king learns of Brummells condition, and decides to visit him while in Calais on state business. The king’s visit is the setting for a reconciliation between the two former friends. But it comes late, because Brummell is deathly ill, and dies shortly thereafter.

The screenplay for the 1954 film was loosely based on the play by Clyde Fitch entitled Beau Brummell, which was first produced in Madison Square Theatre in New York in 1890. Also based on the same play was the silent film production Beau Brummell, which had appeared in 1924, starring John Barrymore and Mary Astor. This 1924 film version, which was directed by Harry Beaumont and built on a screenplay by Dorothy Farnum, differed considerably from the 1890 stage version in its development of plot and characters. However Karl Tunberg’s screenplay for the 1954 departs vastly from both previous dramatizations. First, the friendship between Brummell and the Prince Regent, which is tragically transformed into a rift between them, is more deeply developed and plays a much more central role in Tunberg’s 1954 version. Brummell’s involvement as a confidant and advisor in the Prince’s conflict with William Pitt and parliament, his role in the plot to have the old king George III certified by doctors as insane, and his advice pertaining to the Prince’s long-standing love affair with Mrs. Fitzherbert – all crucial factors in Karl Tunberg’s dramatic development of Brummell’s relationship with the Prince – are quite absent from the stage play and from the 1924 film. Moreover, the character of Lady Patricia Belham and the development of her romance with Brummell are entirely a development of Tunberg’s screenplay: Brummell’s love interests in the 1890 play and in the 1924 film are very differently portrayed and involve quite different female characters.

Ben Hur 1959 Epic Drama

The epic story of Judah Ben Hur was the invention of Lew Wallace, who had achieved prominence in mid and late nineteenth-century America as a general in the American Civil War, as governor of the territory (as it was then) of New Mexico, and as U.S. Minister to Turkey. His novel entitled Ben Hur, which tells a wide-ranging tale set in the ancient Roman world at the time of Christ, proved to be a huge success. At the very end of the nineteenth century (1899) a play based on Wallace’s novel had its premiere on Broadway. This play ran for twenty years, not only in American cities, but also outside of America. By the end of the 1920s there had been two silent films based on Wallace’s epic, the second of which (released 1926) had great success and featured scenes of epic grandeur -- especially the renowned chariot race – which rivaled those in the classic 1959 epic, the subject of the present discussion.

The plot of the 1959 film differs in major ways from that of Wallace’s novel, and from the novel’s dramatic and silent movie offsprings. Indeed the script itself which emerged as a movie in 1959 was a tangled evolution involving years of rewrites, changes and disputes (see Controversies over Screen-Writing Credit). The summary presented here makes no attempt to trace those changes: it is intended to be merely a convenient synopsis of the film released in 1959.

The time is the early first century A.D. The leading characters are Judah Ben-Hur, a Jewish aristocrat, Miriam, Ben Hur’s mother, and Tirzah, his sister. Esther, the daughter of Ben Hur’s loyal servant Simonides, loves Ben-Hur, although she is promised to another man.

Ben-Hur, devoted to the freedom of the Jewish people finds himself at odds with Messala, the commander of the Roman garrison in Jerusalem, who had been Ben-Hur’s friend in boyhood. Open conflict arises when Gratus, the governor of Judaea is severely injured by tiles accidentally falling from the roof of Ben-Hur's house. Ben-Hur is wrongly blamed for the incident. His mother and sister are imprisoned and Ben-Hur is condemned to be a galley slave.

Ben-Hur’s fortune changes, however, when the galley in which has been condemned to row is sunk in a sea battle with pirates. Ben Hur not only manages to escape, but saves the Roman commander Quintus Arrius. Moreover, as they float on a fragment of wreckage, Ben-Hur prevents Arrius (who wrongly believes the Romans had been defeated in the sea fight) from committing suicide. They are rescued. Arrius learns that the Romans won the battle, gets credit for the victory and adopts (in Roman fashion) Ben-Hur as his son. But Ben-Hur is determined to return to Palestine and to secure the liberty of his sister and mother.

On his way back to Judaea he encounters Ilderim, an Arab noble, who has heard of Ben-Hur’s skill with horses. Ilderim has splendid horses, which he requests that Ben-Hur drive in a chariot race as part of official games in honor of Pontius Pilate, the new governor of Judaea. Initially Ben-Hur rejects this request, even though the project offers the potential of humiliating the powerful and arrogant Messala, who himself competes in the circus. But Ben-Hur changes his mind after his unsuccessful attempt to win from Messala the freedom of his mother and sister. In fact, the two women had been infected with leprosy in prison, and the Romans have them taken to the outskirts of the city. Esther, however, tells Ben-Hur they have died. In so doing, she follows the wishes of the two women, who do not want Ben-Hur to see them ruined by the disease, but to remember them as they were.

Ben-Hur, consumed with hate and desire to undermine Messala, enters the chariot race. Despite the fact that Messala has armed his wheels with scythes, and by this means destroys several of his opponents, Ben-Hur outmaneuvers Messala. As the two opponents vie for the lead, Messala’s chariot overturns and he is dragged by his horses. After Ben-Hur is crowned the victor, he visits the dying Messala, who reveals to Ben–Hur that his mother and sister are not dead, but consumed with leprosy and living in a secluded valley with other lepers.

Ignoring the danger of catching the disease, Ben-Hur visits the valley of the lepers. There he encounters Esther (whose love relationship with Ben-Hur has developed openly since Ben-Hur’s return to Jerusalem), who, together with the mute Malluch, the caretaker of her now blind and crippled father, is taking food to the lepers. Despite Ben-Hur’s anger at being deceived by Esther, he yields to her pleas that he not show himself to his mother and sister, who could not bear the idea of Ben-Hur actually seeing them in their leprous condition. After watching in hiding, while Esther gives them food, he accompanies Esther and Malluch back to the city.

On their journey back they encounter a crowd on a hill gathered to hear a sermon given by the Nazarene. Although Ben-Hur is not convinced when he is told the Nazarene is the “son of God”, he is reminded of a kind Nazarene man, who, ignoring the threats of a Roman guard, had given Ben-Hur water, when Ben-Hur was being led to the galleys years before. Moreover, after Ben-Hur’s return to Jerusalem as the adopted son of Arrius, Esther had spoken to him of a young Nazarene who preached a doctrine of love.

After his return to Jerusalem from the valley of the lepers, Ben-Hur rejects the gift of Roman citizenship offered by Pilate, and even, as an expression of his opposition to Rome, gives up the ring of adoption received from Arrius. This is the occasion for Esther to tell him again of the doctrine of forgiveness she has learned from the Nazarene. Ben-Hur ignores the suggestion of forgiveness, but follows Esther back to the valley of the lepers. There Miriam reveals to Esther that Tirzah is dying. At this point Ben-Hur refuses to conceal himself any longer from his mother and sister. Stepping forward, he embraces his mother, and carries Tirzah back to the city, accompanied by Miriam. They follow Esther, who wants to take them to the Nazarene.

But when they reach the city they find people gathered for the trial of the Nazarene. Ben-Hur now recognizes the Nazarene, and follows him to the actual crucifixion. After the death of the Nazarene, there is an immense storm. The epic ends with a miracle – Miriam and Tirzah are freed from leprosy. As Ben-Hur embraces Esther, the viewer is left with the impression that Ben-Hur will now follow the example of the Nazarene in forgiveness of those who persecuted him.

I Thank a Fool

Christine Allison, a Canadian doctor, is convicted of having given to her terminally ill lover an overdose of painkillers. Released after having served two years in prison for manslaughter Christine changes her surname to Godden, but fails in all attempts to find employment. Finally she responds to a mysterious call from someone who promises help. Her benefactor turns out to be Stephen Dane, the highly capable public prosecutor who had secured her conviction for manslaughter. He needs a caregiver for his mentally ill wife Liane, whose history of derangement is connected with her family past in Ireland, and an automobile accident in which Liane was traumatized and her father apparently killed. Stephen, whose seeking out Christine was no accident, believes that she will succeed where other caregivers have failed. As a trained doctor Christine fully understands medical treatments, but, having been deprived of her credentials as a doctor, cannot provide any certification that would be needed by anyone who wanted to have Liane committed – and Stephen is determined that his wife will live at home and never be committed. Christine, though at first unwilling to be associated in any way with the man largely responsible for her time in prison, ends up accepting the employment in Dane’s country house.

It is no easy assignment. Liane is whimsical, erratic, and subject to sudden outbursts which publicly embarrass her husband. She loses herself in imagined memories of growing up in an idyllic environment in Carach, Ireland, with her father (her mother had died of a fall from a precipice while Liane was still a child). Sometimes Liane seems to love Stephen jealously, accusing him of an affair with Polly, a local pub owner. At other times she says she is prisoner in Stephen’s house, and was taken by Stephen from her family home against her father’s will. Her public assertion that her husband doesn’t “sleep with” her contrasts with a scene in which Christine overhears Stephen being vehemently, and even violently, rebuffed when he tries to gain access to Liane’s room at night. Added to the kaleidoscope of confusing impressions are Liane’s flirtatious meetings with the Irish man who takes care of Stephen’s horses.

A turning point occurs when Liane is away at the dentist’s office and Stephen is away on business. Christine, who has stayed in the house, has a visitor. He is Ferris, Liane’s father! He is not dead at all! Ferris had come in the hope of seeing Stephen privately, and he tells Christine that the fiction of his death is something he has agreed on with Stephen. Aside from stressing the need to maintain Liane’s ignorance, he tells Christine nothing more, but leaves to catch a plane.

Christine takes matters into her own hands. She meets Liane privately, tells her that her father is not dead, and suggests they go to Ireland to find her father in Carach and effect a real reunion. After the shock of revelation, Liane agrees. But the remedy is worse than the disease. When they find Ferris’ house, they find him in a drunken stupor with a mistress, and Ferris openly declares that his daughter should return to her husband. He doesn’t want her living with him, and rejects any responsibility for her. Liane flees madly and is injured in a fall.

Stephen, who has followed them to Ireland, in a tense scene reveals to Christine what he insists is the true origin of his connection with Ferris and Liane. Stephen had been involved with prosecuting Ferris (a crooked dealer in horses) in Belfast. Ferris had tried to bribe Stephen, offering him even his own daughter, who had come to Stephen’s rooms ill and only too glad to escape her father. When charges were dropped against Ferris, he began to visit and harass Stephen. It cost Stephen much money to keep him away.

The viewer is confronted with several surprising twists as the plot moves to its denouement. Liane, being treated for her injuries, is given medication by Christine in strict accord with the doctor’s instructions. But Christine wakens the next morning to learn that Liane has died in the night. The bottle of medication is missing from the place where Christine had left it, and it turns out that Liane died of an overdose. When Christine’s past association with “mercy killing” is revealed at the inquest, suspicion obviously falls upon her. But Christine, driven to a fury and protesting her innocence, accuses Stephen of framing her, suggesting that his reason for hiring her in the first place was connected with a plan to do away with Liane. But all of these suspicions evaporate when Ferris is proven to have visited Liane’s room, even after Christine, having given Liane the prescribed medication, had retired.

The trapped Ferris tries in vain to push his way out of the inquest room insisting he didn’t kill his daughter, claiming he had gone that night merely to warn his daughter keep away from him. According to Ferris, his daughter herself had taken the overdose; Ferris had taken away the bottle to put Stephen, his adversary, in a difficult situation. When the police arrive to arrest Ferris, he retreats backwards into a balcony, where he suddenly falls through a rotten fence to his death.

We are left in ambiguity at the end as to whether Ferris actually gave the fatal overdose, or whether Liane took it herself. A viewer who pays attention to Ferris’ pathological rejection of responsibilities, and several hints in the story that Ferris caused the death of his wife (Liane’s mother), who was burdensome to him and whom he hated, might be inclined to suspect that Ferris actually gave the overdose.

At the end, Stephen and Christine are reconciled and go off together. The viewer conjectures their relationship may become closer.

The screenplay for this film was adapted from a novel by Audrey Erskine Lindop, which was originally published in 1957 under the title Mist over Talla. The screenplay differs from the novel in fundamental ways. Most importantly, the character of Christine, a defrocked doctor suspected of “mercy killing,” and the psychological murder mystery surrounding Liane’s death are entirely creations of the screenplay.

In the novel the story is narrated from the first-person perspective of Harriet Godden, whose hopes of founding an interior decorating business are frustrated, and who decides to answer an advertisement for a position as live-in caregiver for a country landlord’s wife. The character of the wife, Liane, is similar to that of the corresponding figure in the film. She is young, mentally deranged, subject to sudden shifts of mood, dangerously attracted to speed in cars, and apt to run away from home on sudden impulses. As in the film, Liane fantasizes about an idyllic childhood in Ireland with her father. In the novel, however, Liane’s father is simply an impecunious, irresponsible alcoholic, who has no implied connections to illegal or criminal activities

Liane’s husband in the novel, Major “Lead” Steward, a retired soldier and a farmer by profession, is utterly different from the corresponding figure of Liane’s husband in the film. But not unlike Stephen Dane in the film, Stewart pretends that Liane’s father had died in a car accident in which Liane had also received injuries, in order to discourage Liana’s impulses to go back to Ireland. In the novel also, this falsehood is exposed.

Harriet finds herself falling in love with Liane’s husband and this developing love interest is much more overt in the novel than in the film. When Harriet decides to take Liane to Ireland to confront her with her real past, Liane becomes even more deranged, and takes a car on a catastrophic rampage, in which Major Stewart is injured.

Finally Harriet leaves her care-giver’s position. Sometime later she learns from a newspaper article that Liane died from an accidental fall. Although Stewart later pays Harriet a visit, the two are never united.

The Seventh Dawn

Michael Keon set his novel entitled The Durian Tree in Malaya during the ‘Emergency’ - a guerrilla war fought between the British and Commonwealth military forces and the jungle fighters of the Malayan Communist Party. The conflict lasted from 1948 to 1960, but the novel itself is set some time in the mid-1950s. Keon presents a rich cast of characters: Ng, a communist insurgent leader, who is capable of committing any atrocity to promote what he seems to hold as a quasi-religious cause; Candace the young and beautiful sister of Greta, who is married to Trumpey, the British governor; Dhana, a young Eurasian women with a complicated love-life, who is devoted to the cause of the Malayan people and is perceived by the British as pro-communist; Ferris, the wealthy Australian planter and entrepreneur, who together with Ng worked in the underground against the Japanese occupiers of Malaya in the second world war; and a whole cast of colorful but lesser personalities. Keon skillfully uses stream-of-conscious narration and vivid descriptions to draw the reader into the minds of his characters and to make them feel the hot, damp, vegetation-scented environment of Malaysia. He eschews chronological narration, relying instead on flashbacks, the memories of characters and interrupted narrative to bring his story to life.

Keon’s story begins with Candace taken captive by Ng, forced to trek through jungle to an insurgents’ hideaway, subjected to horrific scenes as Ng kills or wounds those who oppose him. Ng plans her death as retaliation for certain British government actions – the causes of which are fully explained later. Before this can happen, however the reader is brought back to Candace’s pre-captivity life in the governor’s Residency, as sister to his wife. The reader learns about her past, her education in Europe, and sees her party-filled life in Malaya, and learns about Ferris and his former wartime association with Ng against the Japanese. The middle part of the narrative includes a grenade attack on a night club by communist insurgents, Dhana’s actions to organize the people to conduct a demonstration against a curfew on use of bicycles (the Malayan working person’s only form of transport) after 7:30 p.m., her opposition to the British government's destruction of a village thought to be a haven for terrorists and resettling of its inhabitants. Meanwhile Candace becomes good friends with Ferris, with incipient romance implied. She also has some sympathy with the cause of the Malayans. Then Dhana is arrested for violating emergency regulations: the charge against her is a capital one, because live grenades were found concealed in a durian fruit she was carrying on her bicycle. The story moves ahead to Dhana’s trial in court, then back slightly in Candace’s mind to the period that followed Dhana’s arrest, in which period her friendship with Ferris had ripened. When the reader returns to the trial, Dhana is sentenced to death, but the narrative leaves Dhana at this point

Here the story moves to a period that comes after the events narrated in the opening. Ng’s goal had been to hold Candace hostage for the feeing of Dhana, and to kill Candace, if Dhana was executed. But this plan has been thwarted by Ferris, who has tracked down Ng and has freed Candace. The two of them, holding Ng captive, are trekking back to Ferris’ bungalow. After many dangers they succeed in reaching their destination. Ng tries to escape, but is shot and the story ends in his dying perspective.

Karl Tunberg’s screenplay entitled The Seventh Dawn recasts this plot into a chronologically organized, suspenseful tale. And the tragedy of its outcome is, if anything, heightened. It begins at the end of the second world war, with the surrender of the Japanese forces in Malaya. Ferris, Ng and Dhana appear together as victorious fighters in the Malayan resistance against the Japanese. They are joined by friendship and a common cause. The screenplay differs in other significant respects from the novel. Ferris is American, not Australian (perhaps to accommodate the obviously American persona of the actor, William Holden?). The character of Dhana is greatly developed by comparison to her role in the novel. In the film she is Ferris’ mistress. Though Ng has a love interest in her, she returns only a platonic friendship for Ng. However, Ng and Ferris are bonded by a good friendship. But they separate at the war’s end. Ng goes to Moscow for training in communist ideology. Ferris starts a rubber plantation in Malaya, where he lives with Dhana, and over the years he grows wealthy.

When war begins between communist insurgents and the British, Ferris is sought by the British for help with Ng, However, Ferris refuses to inform against his friend. Ng, for his part, wants Ferris to help the communists – a condition which Ferris also refuses. Meanwhile Ferris makes the acquaintance of Candace, who, in the film, is the daughter of Trumpey, the British governor. In fact Candace is attracted to Ferris, but Ferris remains loyal to Dhana.

As in the novel, Dhana is sympathetic to the rights of the Malaysian people and organizes demonstrations on their behalf. Things get worse when terrorists make a grenade attack on the guests invited to a ball at the governor’s Residency. In the screenplay, this attack is the direct motivation for the British destruction of a Malay village and resettlement of its people. Dhana, sickened by this act, wants to migrate to the jungle to join the guerillas, but is arrested and imprisoned when a hollowed durian fruit containing grenades is discovered on her bicycle. Her insistence that she did not know the grenades were there falls on deaf ears.

In the film, the arrest and condemnation of Dhana is a pivotal event and focal point. The police, knowing that Ferris knows where Ng’s camp is, try to persuade him to reveal this information in return for Dhana’s life. They try to make the same sort of deal with Dhana herself. Neither Ferris nor Dhana will betray Ng. Candace’s appeal to her father for Dhana is also in vain, since Trumpey insists he can do nothing without Ferris of Dhana yielding to conditions. Candace sets out in the jungle to find Ng to appeal to him to save Dhana, but instead she is captured by him. Then Ng publishes announcements to the effect that Candace will die, if Dhana is put to death. Ferris also sets out in search of Ng to make his own appeal to Ng to yield himself to save Dhana. Here there is even a note of false hope, because Ferris gains a promise from a British police chief of a few days’ extension in the date of Dhana’s execution, so Ferris has more time to find Ng -- but this hope is destroyed because the British officer is assassinated in a terror attack before he can institute the promised delay. Things rush to a grim conclusion when British troop destroy Ng’s camp, Ng escapes with his hostage Candace - only to be surprised and disarmed by Ferris. They start back. Ng, in attempt to break free, is shot by Candace. Dying, Ng confesses he planted the grenades in the hollowed fruit on Dhana’s bicycle, believing that her conviction would alienate the Malayan people irrevocably from the British. Ferris, horrified by Ng’s placing his cause above the level of Dhana’s life, feels his friendship for Ng destroyed just as Ng loses his life.

They finally return, but too late to save Dhana from the death sentence. Ferris, a changed and embittered man, decides to leave Malaya – the land he once thought he never could leave.

The film version seems to make a statement that loyalty to friends and individual human beings is more important than loyalty to causes. According to this criterion, Ng fails, while Dhana, Ferris and even Candace succeed.

There is no way to determine whether the script that was actually translated to film deviates in any details from the final script written by Karl Tunberg, who, after disagreements with Feldman, the director Gilbert and some others, left the project on his own initiative half-way through production. These disagreements seem, at least in part, to have concerned issues of casting.