Saturday night my wife and I and the youngest took in Easy Living at the A.F.I. as a part of their tribute to Jean Arthur this February. Made in 1937 it was written by Preston Sturges who was still more than a couple of years away from directing his scripts and so directing duties fell to renowned Hollywood director Mitchell Leisen, director of such films as Death Takes a Holiday, To Each His Own and Captain Carey, U.S.A. among many, many others. And while the three of us enjoyed ourselves and the movie, it did leave me asking the question, "Can a comedy be too screwball?"Apropos of the finest tradition of screwball comedy the plot is absurd in the extreme. Edward Arnold plays J.B. Ball, a wealthy banker whose son, John Ball, Jr., played by Ray Milland, doesn't want to be idly rich but instead work and earn his money so he stomps out on breakfast with his father after explaining this and we don't see him again until halfway through the movie excepting that in the meantime J.B.'s wife buys a $58,000 mink coat without asking and J.B. throws another of her coats out the window which lands on Mary's head (Jean Arthur) who tries to give it back but instead he buys her a fur hat and everyone thinks they're having an affair and then a hotel J.B.'s about to foreclose on puts her up as a guest thinking he won't foreclose if his mistress lives there and then she meets John working at the automat and he gets fired trying to give her free food and then somewhere, somehow, J.B.'s stocks crumble because Mary gets asked about steel and asks John and... (takes in deep breath)... Oh Christ, I don't know. Frankly, it's no more absurd than Libeled Lady or My Man Godfrey or The Awful Truth but it feels more absurd, or at least more frantic.
There's a breathlessness to the film that's expected from a screwball comedy but Mitchell Leisen makes the mistake of keeping the pitch at fever level from opening frame to last, not just in pace but in attitude. There's nary a moment in the film when the characters aren't yelling their lines and at least 50 percent of the film's total screentime involves pratfalls. I'm not kidding, at least half the movie involves long sequences of falls and foodfights and tumbles down stairs. Everyone falls all the time and when they're not falling, they're yelling about falling, or yelling that someone else yelled that they yelled about falling. You get the point. Yelling and falling. They're in ample supply throughout.
All the Preston Sturges trademarks are here, including a little sex, as well as character actors like William Demarest in a brief two minute role a couple of years before he would become a Sturges standby in
the forties. What's not here is Preston Sturges the director, pulling on the reins tightly. Sturges movies were barely contained free-for-alls but they were contained. This one is just a free-for-all. Think about Sullivan's Travels or The Lady Eve and think about all the craziness that's broken up by all the non-craziness. In Sullivan's Travels there's the poolside scene, several moments on the bus, McCrea and Lake in Shantytown, at the diner and so on. Each wacky scene is broken up by three or four sedate scenes to draw the audience back into the story. But here there is one sedate scene that I recall, and only one. A brief scene in Mary's suite where she and John talk about life and work. For a couple of minutes. Then it's back to yelling and falling.It seems strange to think Sturges would have made a difference as a director with the same script he himself wrote but bear with me. There are many scenes in the film that should be played sedately and aren't. There are scenes between J.B. and his wife Jenny (Mary Nash), in his office, or with his secretary in his office, that could've and should've been played straight but Leisen has them yell their lines throughout. I don't think Sturges would have made that choice and I think it was the direction of his scripts by people like Leisen that prompted Sturges to give a shot at directing himself. I believe Leisen was under the mistaken conclusion that for screwball to work it had to be played at the top of one's lungs. Sturges understood you have to pull it in so that the audience relaxes at which point you uncork the dam again and drown your audience in fits of laughter.
As for the acting, Jean Arthur walks away with the whole film, even though she appears in only roughly half of it (and Arnold's character the other half). Unlike Arnold and Milland and Nash, fine actors all who do fine work here as well, Arthur's character is the only one that doesn't yell very much and is given the time develop, at least a little bit, while everyone else bulges their eyes and busts their prats.
In the end, the three of us enjoyed it for what it was and certainly couldn't fault it on pacing or length. We had a nice night taking in a movie and a late dinner (pizza, for the curious) but I have a feeling the movie portion of our evening would have delighted us more had Mr. Sturges been behind the wheel. Maybe that's the mark of a great director, when all you can think about is how much better it would have been with him in charge. Leisen was a skilled and talented director no doubt, but the best director for a Sturges script, it turns out, is Sturges. Certainly something to talk about at least. Just don't yell.

28 comments:
I have always had a problem with screwball comedy. Perhaps it was my early antipathy to Lucille Ball on TV, who reminded me of my aunt whom my mother spent too much time with according to my young mind. But the rapid-fire approach tends to give me a headache instead of make my laugh. Sturges as writer/director doesn't always work either. Watch The Sin of Harold Diddlebock for evidence.
I'm not a fan of The Sin of Harold Diddlebock either, mainly for that damn suit which makes me seasick, but I do love Sullivan's Travels and The Lady Eve and I think it's because they're not as breakneck. Neither are non-Sturges films like My Man Godfrey or The Awful Truth. But when screwball comedy shifts into high-gear after the credits and doesn't downshift until "THE END" shows up on the screen, I'm with you, it just gives me a headache.
Oh, I totally disagree. I love this movie; the Automat scene paralyzes me every time I see it. I don't find it much more frantic than Palm Beach Story, for example, or that there's more yelling than in My Man Godfrey. Preston Sturges does film his own dialogue and breakneck comic situations better than anyone. But what Leisen brings is a stronger sense of romance, as in the hotel scene you mention, as well as in Remember the Night and Midnight.
or that there's more yelling than in My Man Godfrey.
Oh yes there is, these guys don't shut up in this movie. I didn't hate it, faint praise I know, but I didn't find it on the same level as other Sturges films.
This film starts with J.B. falling down the stairs and yelling at servants, then having a shouting match with his son at breakfast before going into the third scene where he yells at his wife then chases her through the house yelling. I mean, it really goes right into it. Now think of The Lady Eve or Sullivan's Travels and think about those openings.
I just think there's too much frenzy, too soon.
The automat scene I did love but for different reasons. I loved it because I'm entranced by automats. I wish we still had them. Something about there look and feel. I'll even watch Cary Grant and Doris Day in That Touch of Mink just to see the automat. Anyway, the pratfalls in the automat scene were extremely well-rehearsed and expertly choreographed, I agree, and my youngest and wife found it very funny indeed. I found it a little funny but was more impressed with the choreography than taken with the comedy.
Hey, it feels like a For the Love of Film reunion here in the comment section. While I'm at it, thank you both for including me and for a stupendous job of running what I believe was the most successful blogathon I've ever seen. I can't think of one that got a bigger response.
This seems a perfect opportunity to confess I've always hated Bringing Up Baby, which struck me even as a child as a mechanical exercise in screwball without the heart that makes that discipline successful.
Arbogast, that's a hell of a limb to go out on, especially since Howard Hawks is at the helm, but I tend to agree. When I mention my favorites here on Cinema Styles I always list the same ones that you saw me list here (My Man Godfrey, Libeled Lady, for instance) but never Bringing up Baby. I always wondered what I'd say if someone asked me about it but until now it's never come up. It does feel like an exercise to me as well with no real heart which Godfrey has in spades.
Remember David Denby taking it down in 1990 in the pre-internet days, in Premiere Magazine? Wow, I've never seen such a negative response from readers. They hated him for it. It's not a movie people like to hear others don't necessarily like.
Sullivan's Travels opens (after the fake movie) with a pretty heated argument in the producer's office; Palm Beach Story has one of the most frantic openings ever, in any era; My Man Godfrey opens with a car chase and people yelling over the engines. I dunno, I don't see the problem. The nature of screwball is a fast pace, fast dialogue and quick-tempered people overreacting. Arnold's character is a red-faced tycoon type whose bad humor is the plot driver; if he weren't established as foul-tempered we'd see him throw that sable over the railing and just think he'd lost his marbles. I forget what the price is (they do tell you as I recall) but in 1937 it was breathtaking and the rich like money even more than the non-rich do. I pretty much knew I loved the movie from the moment the coat hit Jean Arthur in the face.
Of course, it's also a fragile genre, and if the movie doesn't connect with the audience from the first scene, as EL didn't with you and as Bringing Up Baby didn't with Arbogast, then what you get is rising irritation instead of increasingly helpless giggles. The tone and pacing are extremely hard to get right and when you see one that's bad (like the My Man Godfrey remake--CRINGE) it is like physical torture.
Siren - I wisely, and I think pretty cleverly, left The Palm Beach Story out of my argument. If I can't use selective reasoning what good am I?
I still don't see the argument in the producer's office as coming close to the yelling matches in this one but I could be wrong. The price by the way was $58,000 dollars, a freaking astonishing sum for a coat at any time but most especially in 1937!
I suppose I didn't like it as much from the start as you but I did like it (I do say that in the review) and Jean Arthur is wonderful. She's the principal reason my wife and I wanted to see it and she didn't disappoint.
I also never saw, and probably never will see, the My Man Godfrey remake. Cringe, indeed.
I sat through the remake for the sake of David Niven. That is how much I like David Niven, that I was willing to endure June Allyson in a Lombard role so I could see David Niven. Well even if you love Niven there is no need to subject yourself to the remake, unless you are locked in a castle and the only alternative on hand is something like Hostel.
there is no need to subject yourself to the remake, unless you are locked in a castle and the only alternative on hand is something like Hostel.
You're not going to believe this, but...
I'd say I agree with you, Greg, except that I love, love, love Bringing Up Baby. And The Palm Beach Story is my favorite Sturges film. And I've always found My Man Godfrey a little dull.
Still, I think I agree with you in theory...
So we agree to disa... wait. No. We disagree to... no, that's not it either. So we... what do we do?
I like The Palm Beach Story that's why I left it out of the argument as I hinted to The Siren. It is frenetic and would obviously not make for a good argument against staying in high gear.
Otherwise we agree. Or something.
give me "My Man Godfrey"(even tho Carol promesis to go the limit)and "You Can't Take it With You" any day!
Christopher, we were going to go see You Can't Take it With You Friday at the AFI but got bogged down by other obligations and went for Easy Living on Saturday instead. I can watch Jean Arthur in just about anything.
Have you seen Arthur in Billy Wilder's A Foreign Affair? It's a terrific picture. Crackerjack, even.
No, I haven't and I've never seen it available anywhere either. I just checked again in the usual places (Netflix, i-tunes, Amazon) and nothing except a couple of used Region 2 imports for more than I want to pay. Alas.
The words "Jean Arthur retrospective" fill me with complete envy and make me so sad that I don't live somewhere where such a thing might happen.
I think it might be the effect of watching screwball comedies on the big screen. Something about not being able to control the volume.
You know Jenny, I actually did think about that. The yelling did seem very loud and I thought, "Maybe if it was a little lower..."
Still, as I said in the review, I enjoyed it for what it was. Reviews are always a tricky thing. I had several complaints and thought it could have been better but in the end we all had a good time.
And a Jean Arthur month is a GREAT thing! We're going to see more.
I caught A Foreign Affair on TCM. So keep an eye out, I guess.
They're showing Five Graves to Cairo tonight. Another early Wilder that's hard to come by. And one that I haven't seen.
The thing is, madcap, frenzied screwball is very annoying, except when it's funny, in which case I like it.
Same here. The odds seem amazing but every time I don't like a screwball comedy its antics are really grating. Amazingly though, in every one I like, the antics are just fine. That's why I'm the final judge on these things, because I'm so objective.
A Foreign Affair is one of those movies that was hurt by casting problems, namely, who the heck is John Lund and why did Wilder think he should be in this movie?
Charles, I'm assuming they blew the budget on Jean Arthur and Marlene Dietrich and bought John Lund with the spare change they had left in their pockets.
I suppose there is a "Who the hell is John Lund" factor to his casting, but it's rendered irrelevant by the fact that he's very good in the role.
I mean, he's being pulled in either direction by Jean Arthur and Marlene Dietrich. The movie doesn't need a Cary Grant, and, honestly, probably wouldn't work as well if it had one.
Being pulled in either direction by Jean Arthur and Marlene Dietrich? Hell, I'd pay to have that part.
It's been quite a few years since I saw A Foreign Affair, but as I remember it, the character Lund played was sort of a bounder. I'm not sure how much my not liking Lund was the character, how much was Lund himself. I think a better/more charismatic actor might have made the character more appealing.
Wow! What a blog. Nice work. Snow White would dig it I'm sure.
Post a Comment