Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

Frank Capra’s “Arsenic and Old Lace”

Thematic Elements: 

In 1944, Frank Capra adapted the popular stage play, “Arsenic and Old Lace” for the film screen. This was during a time when the entire world was thrown into chaos with World War II. The temperament at the time was that of confusion and chaos, ultimately resulting in questions about morality, both individual and collective morality, and the judgement of others that extends from it. Arsenic and Old Lace is a film that poses such questions. Throughout the 30’s Capra had participated in what many consider ‘screwball comedies’ in which lively and likeable characters come across uncertain and questionable circumstances, circumstances that place them in the opposite situation of which they find comfort. When the 1940s came, so did the war. Along with the war came much darker American films, most notably the film noir movement. Arsenic and Old Lace is not at all a noir film, but Capra does do something interesting; he takes the protagonist of the screwball comedies of the 1930s and places him in a much more bleak and disturbing circumstance. You could easily say that Arsenic and Old Lace represented the end of the screwball comedy era, by representing its tone in the central protagonist and placing him in circumstances he was not prepared for, the dark and sinister tones of the 1940s. This meshing of tones meshes the lightheadedness that America cinema had come accustomed to with the brooding violent undertones that it had become – providing the ultimate contrast between the changing of the American temperament. 

The film opens on a title screen above drawings indicating that it is Halloween. The fact that this story takes place on Halloween indicates a crucial element involving the theme. Halloween is often regarded as a celebration of the darker elements of life, thereby setting a tone for the story immediately. Cary Grant plays Mortimer Brewster, who is in line to apply for a marriage license with his affianced, Elaine. Mortimer is a respected New York drama critic who has also written a book ridiculing the social normalcy of marriage. Two reporters note, “"the guy who wrote the bachelor's bible finally getting hooked himself.” Right off the bat we understand Mortimer as being someone who is in the business of judgement. His career is to judge plays and performances and it even seems that he judges normal social conventions around him. In the spirit of the Halloween theme, this almost makes him seem like a ghost, stuck in a state of observance. His very first act of the film is an action that goes against his preconceived judgements by marrying Elaine, the daughter of the local minister. These opening scenes set the stage for what will be a film containing dark tones that allow someone who spends their life as an observer and allocator of judgement to be an active participator and a fragmentation of his already held judgements. 

We are then introduced to Brewster family mansion, which sets up more foundational expectations. A retiring police officer is showing a new officer who is taking over his beat the Brewster residence. The older officer can do nothing but wax poetic about the family, insisting to the new officer that he will have nothing to worry about from the Brewster’s. He tells the younger officer, “They're two of the dearest, sweetest, kindest old ladies that ever walked the earth. They're out of this world...They're like pressed rose leaves...Their old man left them fixed for life.” marking the assumptions about these women as being incredibly sweet, kind, and gentle. The officer adds, “They don't rent rooms, but you can bet if anybody came around looking for a room, they wouldn't go away without a good meal and probably a couple of bucks in their pocket. That's just their way of digging up people to do good to,” which indicates that they welcome people in need of a place to stay. The only hiccup in this picturesque existence is their nephew and Mortimer’s younger brother, Theodore, who believes himself to be Theodore Roosevelt. This extra level of absurdity doesn’t seem to diminish the niceties of the two older women, but rather paints them as patient and caring people, seeing as how they tend to their nephew’s insanities. 

When Mortimer goes to his aunt’s home to celebrate the news of his marriage, he receives quite a shock. Upon opening the window seat, he finds a dead body stored away. Thinking this was the product of his mad brother, he informs his aunts of this body only for them to inform him that the dead body is simply Mr. Hoskins, whom they gave poisoned wine. The aunts tell Mortimer that their act was done out of charity. Every time a homeless person comes in to have a place to stay, they poison them, effectively putting them out of their miserable existence and burying them in the cellar. Mortimer is horrified to learn from them that there are twelve other bodies buried in the cellar as well. His aunts, however, are blissfully aware of their moral degradation and only believe their acts to be kind, as they believe that they are ending these people’s loneliness and providing final peace. Not only does this revelation completely crumble both our expectations as well as Mortimer’s expectations and assumptions about these two sweet and kind women, but also questions the ethical morals of what they are doing. They believe themselves to be acting in good conscious, but the very act of murder seems congruent with immorality. 

Mortimer now has been placed in a state of action, in which he must remove himself as being an observer. Mortimer could just call the police and have them arrest his aunts. However, he understands his aunts’ perspective on their actions, believing their behavior as separate from their intent or purpose. Mortimer decides to pin the murders on his insane brother, orchestrating the rest of his night around gathering up the necessary paperwork and signatures to commit his brother. He believes that it is more moral for him to commit his already insane brother than to send his two aunts to jail simply for their ill-placed ‘charity.’ 

Once Mortimer leaves to go attain the before-mentioned signature, his estranged older brother Jonathan arrives with his companion, Dr. Einstein. Jonathan and Dr. Einstein are looking for a place to hide away and dispose of the recently deceased man they had just murdered. Jonathan murders victims and uses Dr. Einstein to transplant their faces on to his. The introduction of Jonathan offers a more terrifying view on the morally reprehensible. Whereas Mortimer’s aunts are sweet old ladies who murder as an act of charity, Jonathan murders for the sake of consumption. This is a morality that seems easier for Mortimer to distinguish. Once Mortimer returns to the house, he tries to manipulate the situation into his benefit by trying to pin the murders of all the men in the cellar on Jonathan, someone he believes deserves punishment and to be judged as morally corrupted. 

Dr. Einstein, however, seems to be the character with the greatest sense of common morality. He seems to regret his association with Jonathan as he criticizes him for killing and discourages him from killing again. Dr. Einstein also does not seem to exhibit any sort of distinction between the killing the aunts have committed and the killings Jonathan has committed. His own individual morality seems to question the morality of all the other, passing judgment on the heinous nature of the Brewster’s.  

The conflicting sense of who to morally judge in this film start to become questionable. Obviously, it seems Jonathan is the most reprehensible character, even going so far as to suggest that he has been this way his whole life, as he alludes to torturing Mortimer as a child by sticking needles under his fingernails. But then there are the aunts, who’s actions appear immoral, yet their intentions seem otherwise. Theodore assists his aunts in their crimes by burying all the bodies in the cellar, believing (because he thinks he’s Teddy Roosevelt) that they are victims of yellow fever. However, does his ignorance of what he is doing shield him from moral judgement? Mortimer, the protagonist’s morals should also be called into questions, as he casts judgement on who deserves punishment and who does not. Is he really the arbiter of morality? And isn’t he behaving morally reprehensibly by manipulating facts to get his aunts out of punishment for their actions? Every participator in this morality play must choose what they believe and take action on those beliefs. 

With this film, Capra shoves the screwball protagonist into a dark and morally grey world. Where once he was a ghost silently observing and casting judgement, he is now thrown into a dark world where he must take action and sacrifice his own disinvolvement to choose a moral stance. This mirrors the society Capra saw in 1941 (the film was made in 1941 but release three years later in 1944). The financial despair of the 1930s created entertainment where everyday societal problems could be solved with a wink and smile, giving filmgoers and excuse to leave their problems for the light-hearted screwball comedies that only dealt with darker elements of life with a light touch. Capra takes this premise and injects it with reprehensible characters, morally grey characters, and violent undertones seething under the surface, implying that the light touch can only get so far before it must take action in a dark and sinister world.  

Camerawork: 

Framing: Great directors use framing to construct characters visually with an added framed element that allows for abstract visual cues and ideas. An example of Capra utilizing framing comes when Mortimer calls Judge Cullman to institutionalize his brother. Capra frames Mortimer behind the bars of the staircase as he is calling. Capra uses this framing to visually suggest that Mortimer is trapping himself. Rather than calling the police, Mortimer is trying to save his aunts from moral judgement. This action traps him to chaotic circumstances that follow. 

Suspense: Being that this is a film which regards many dark things, there is plenty of suspense that comes along with it. Capra, who is not a filmmaker who makes any suspenseful things, does a decent job in this film. One example of a way in which he instills suspense comes when the Brewster aunts invite another homeless man into the home. After giving him some wine to drink, he continuously brings it up to his mouth to drink only to be distracted by Mortimer yelling over the phone at someone. The continued distraction that causes the man to keep bringing it up to his lips only to put it back down draws the scene out and creates in the viewer a suspense that anticipates the man drinking the poisoned wine.  

Lighting: Capra is not a director who is known for unique lighting. However, there is one instance in which he uses light, or lack thereof, to suggest a tonal shift. This happens when Mortimer leaves and the aunts prepare for bed, only for Jonathan to arrive. During the entire first act, Capra keeps the lighting pretty adjacent to standard film lighting; it isn’t until Mortimer leaves that Capra turns down the lighting significantly, as the living room of the Brewster home becomes much darker. This discernable shift points to the tone of Jonathan’s arrival and the arrival of a much darker element of the story.

Metatextuality: There is a scene in Arsenic and Old Lace in which Mortimer exclaims to Dr. Einstein that people in films do not realize that they are about to be captured or tied up. As he is exclaiming this, Jonathan is behind him about to do just that. This metatextuality signifies that Mortimer is referencing other films in comparison to this film. The use of pointing out that he is a ignorant as characters in the movies gives a heightened sense of reality, or lack of reality. This reference grounds the audience in the notion that they are indeed watching a film, thereby understanding the elemental danger of what is about to happen – giving the scene a deeper level of suspense. Mortimer is implying that he is stuck in a story in which bad things will happen, a fate he cannot escape from.