In "Fitzwilly" loyal servants led by an ingenious butler steal possessions, mainly through fraud, in order to support their aged mistress. (The poor dear continues to live in style and to help out various charities, not realizing that she is penniless.) As a comedy, "Fitzwilly" contains a number of funny finds, such as the idea of a regional network of closely related servants tipping each other off with a seasoned efficiency an intelligence agency would be proud of. It also boasts a magisterial Edith Evans, as the dotty but kindly employer who's trying to write a new kind of dictionary.
Sadly, the central romance (between the butler and the employer's new secretary) is clichéd ; it's one of these standard thingies where both partners start out loathing each other before falling into each other's arms. Moreover, the ethics of the servant gang seem to be muddled beyond belief. Are they stealing from the poor in order to support the rich ? Stealing from the rich in order to support the poor ? Stealing from the rich in order to support the rich ? Their antics are certainly not as harmless as the story would have you believe. In order to rob a department store, for instance, they organize an artificial rush by luring customers into the building, blocking the exits and creating disturbances all over the floor. It's an incredibly dangerous situation : if a drunken joker were to yell "Fire !" the rush would turn into a lethal stampede. Or what if some older customer were to suffer a heart attack ? There is no way medical help could reach the man in time through such a commotion.
As a viewer you're also not supposed to ask an obvious question, to wit, how can one be penniless if one owns a giant mansion filled with costly books and antiques ? The most obvious solution, here, would be to sell off at least part of the mansion or the furniture, but no : the dear old mistress would die upon having to part with three consoles and four side tables. Ah, well.
Anyway, one thing's for sure, if a very rich heir or heiress donates money to charity, you can be certain that you're looking at stolen money. Perhaps stolen last month, perhaps stolen seventy years ago, perhaps stolen two hundred years ago, but : stolen.
Sadly, the central romance (between the butler and the employer's new secretary) is clichéd ; it's one of these standard thingies where both partners start out loathing each other before falling into each other's arms. Moreover, the ethics of the servant gang seem to be muddled beyond belief. Are they stealing from the poor in order to support the rich ? Stealing from the rich in order to support the poor ? Stealing from the rich in order to support the rich ? Their antics are certainly not as harmless as the story would have you believe. In order to rob a department store, for instance, they organize an artificial rush by luring customers into the building, blocking the exits and creating disturbances all over the floor. It's an incredibly dangerous situation : if a drunken joker were to yell "Fire !" the rush would turn into a lethal stampede. Or what if some older customer were to suffer a heart attack ? There is no way medical help could reach the man in time through such a commotion.
As a viewer you're also not supposed to ask an obvious question, to wit, how can one be penniless if one owns a giant mansion filled with costly books and antiques ? The most obvious solution, here, would be to sell off at least part of the mansion or the furniture, but no : the dear old mistress would die upon having to part with three consoles and four side tables. Ah, well.
Anyway, one thing's for sure, if a very rich heir or heiress donates money to charity, you can be certain that you're looking at stolen money. Perhaps stolen last month, perhaps stolen seventy years ago, perhaps stolen two hundred years ago, but : stolen.