Watch The Moon and Sixpence For Free

Masterful Movie

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

The most extraordinary feature of this film is the incredible smoothness it adds to the story line; it's a masterpiece of great dialogue and incredible actors to deliver the story. Who has ever seen any better, and unobtrusive, acting than that of the likes of Saunders, Marshall and the relatively unknown but great actor Steven Gary (who plays Dirk Strouve) ? One will never see another film to exceed this one in these respects.

This story is very loosely based on the life of the painter, Gauguin. Both are amazingly selfish and nasty fellows, though there are a few differences. Sanders' character (Charles Strickland) is British instead and in the end he is stricken with leprosy--not syphilis (which they weren't even allowed to mention in films in the US in 1942). Otherwise, the tone of the character's life is similar to Gauguin--though Gauguin also had a penchant for violence that you also don't see in this film. Either way, you'd probably NOT want either guy to be your husband or best friend! The film is told from the viewpoint of an acquaintance of Strickland--played by Herbert Marshall. Through much of the film, this friend disdains the life Strickland is leading but, oddly, continues to associate with a man he didn't like. This really made little sense. Regardless, the main thrust of the film is to show what a major jerk Strickland is as well as how gifted he was as well. An odd sort of dichotomy, I know.Overall, this was only a fair movie to watch. Part of this is because the film was awfully sanitized. Part of it was because you can't like his character in any way, so when he dies you are left not caring in the least. But for me the biggest problem is that Sanders later played the same sort of guy in "Death of a Scoundrel"--and this latter film was much, much more interesting and florid! An okay time passer, I suggest you see this other film instead--it's a doozy!

If what you are looking for is a standard film story about a painter, look elsewhere. This is a strange story and a strange movie. But don't take that as criticism. I found it very compelling.They say that the story was about Gauguin...and if so, then I can't say he was a very admirable fellow. Here "he's" Charles Strickland, a middle-aged businessman who abandons his wife and children so he can paint in Paris. His tale is told through the eyes of Herbert Marshall. Could there be a worse human being than George Sanders as Charles Strickland. Virtually no redeeming qualities...at least until he gets married to a girl in the South Pacific. Of course, life always pays one back, and Strickland declines into leprosy.The cast here is intriguing. This is one of the best -- though not likable -- performances given by George Sanders. Herbert Marshall is perfect as the eyes of the story (watch for scenes where he is walking...you can notice a limp due his real artificial leg). Elena Verdugo is interesting as the South Seas girl...you may remember her best from her recurring role in "Marcus Welby, M.D." Florence Bates (usually the nagging mother-in-law type) has, perhaps, the most unusual role of her career. Albert Bassermann, as the South Seas doctor, is interesting, though I'm not sure he was any great actor. But his career story is something worth looking up on Wikipedia.I guess we should thank the George Eastman House for restoring this film, although I'm not sure if the nitrate copies were so badly decomposed to explain the relatively poor quality of the print (as shown on TCM), or whether they just did a poor job of restoration. The images are not crisp, and the color scenes in Tahiti are terribly deteriorated.Nevertheless, this is a film to watch. It's unusual and intriguing.

A creator of such intellect as Albert Lewin, the director/adapter of The Moon & Sixpence, rarely had the opportunity in classic period Hollywood to showcase such a unique talent as he had and we are fortunate to have had him. There were only a handful like him that beat the odds and actually were allowed to produce true art instead of common trash -- Sternberg, Ulmer, Sturges come to mind -- and in many ways Lewin stood apart because he worked the system without challenging the former tailors and junk dealers that ran Hollywood. He made a quartet of films that express his unique style magnificently. These are, in order: The Moon & Sixpence, The Picture of Dorian Gray, The Private Affairs of Bel Ami and Pandora And The Flying Dutchman. The common threads are stateliness, pacing and intelligence, with literate dialogue that has a sophistication that belies the commercialism of the time. His lead of choice was George Sanders, who was perfectly cast in the first three titles as a symbol of an age. The Moon and Sixpence is the first of this quartet and showcases what a small budget but superior talent can create. Each film was an improvement on its predecessor, and I recommend that those out there interested in stylized film follow Lewin's work chronologically to observe the course of aesthetic refinement, beginning with The Moon & Sixpence.