The Bishop's Wife
by Robert Nathan
Like most families, I watch The Bishop’s Wife every Christmas. I’ve often wondered why the title was named after Loretta Young’s character, and I was convinced that if I ever read the book I’d learn a secret backstory that didn’t make it to Hollywood. There had to be more to the plot, something that explained why it wasn’t entitled “The Bishop’s Angel” or “The Visiting Angel”.
As it turned out, Robert Nathan’s original novel was incredibly different from Leonardo Bercovici and Robert E. Sherwood’s screenplay adaptation. They used the book’s title and the idea that a bishop wants to build a cathedral and has an unhappy wife, but really nothing else. The character of the professor is completely different, and the character of Mrs. Hamilton is nonexistent—even the name of the angel is different! While in the film, the bishop’s wife literally sobs at the thought of having to spend time with her daughter, in the novel, being a mother is the raison d’être of her life. She lives for her daughter and focuses all her energy on how she’s growing up and the lessons she’s taking from watching her own example. The bishop himself is hardly in the story at all, and the angel is a depressed, morose character who questions his faith and his purpose. Cary Grant, who played the angel in the film, was full of confidence and beamed with brightness. He had a magical aura that lessened people’s burdens just by being around them, which never happened in the novel.
The differences aside, the novel was not a pleasant read. I was very thankful it was so short, so I didn’t have to waste much time on it. It was depressing and pointless, emphasizing the empty cycle of life and how nothing ever changes through the generations. Also, there was a strong anti-Semitic thread. There’s a Jewish character whom the bishop and the angel prey on for money to build the cathedral. They argue for pages, and when the Jewish man says, “What is the use of my contributing to a church where I cannot even get a seat to sit down?”, the angel’s response is to suggest he convert to Christianity. It’s quite offensive, and I’m very grateful that part of the story didn’t make it to the movie.
If you’re still curious, you’re welcome to read it. It is short and you can probably knock it out in a day or two. And when you’re finished, you’ll have a new love for the movie, and for Bercovici and Sherwood’s talents of adaptation and creativity.
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of the 1947 film adaptation here!
As it turned out, Robert Nathan’s original novel was incredibly different from Leonardo Bercovici and Robert E. Sherwood’s screenplay adaptation. They used the book’s title and the idea that a bishop wants to build a cathedral and has an unhappy wife, but really nothing else. The character of the professor is completely different, and the character of Mrs. Hamilton is nonexistent—even the name of the angel is different! While in the film, the bishop’s wife literally sobs at the thought of having to spend time with her daughter, in the novel, being a mother is the raison d’être of her life. She lives for her daughter and focuses all her energy on how she’s growing up and the lessons she’s taking from watching her own example. The bishop himself is hardly in the story at all, and the angel is a depressed, morose character who questions his faith and his purpose. Cary Grant, who played the angel in the film, was full of confidence and beamed with brightness. He had a magical aura that lessened people’s burdens just by being around them, which never happened in the novel.
The differences aside, the novel was not a pleasant read. I was very thankful it was so short, so I didn’t have to waste much time on it. It was depressing and pointless, emphasizing the empty cycle of life and how nothing ever changes through the generations. Also, there was a strong anti-Semitic thread. There’s a Jewish character whom the bishop and the angel prey on for money to build the cathedral. They argue for pages, and when the Jewish man says, “What is the use of my contributing to a church where I cannot even get a seat to sit down?”, the angel’s response is to suggest he convert to Christianity. It’s quite offensive, and I’m very grateful that part of the story didn’t make it to the movie.
If you’re still curious, you’re welcome to read it. It is short and you can probably knock it out in a day or two. And when you’re finished, you’ll have a new love for the movie, and for Bercovici and Sherwood’s talents of adaptation and creativity.
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of the 1947 film adaptation here!