FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
An exacting heiress (Katharine Hepburn) finds her upcoming marriage to a wealthy social climber (John Howard) disrupted by the presence of her alcoholic ex-husband (Cary Grant), who has sought revenge by enlisting the help of a meddling magazine reporter (James Stewart) and his photographer (Ruth Hussey) to cover the wedding — but the situation becomes even more complicated when Stewart falls for Hepburn himself, ignoring the fact that his colleague (Hussey) is smitten with him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cary Grant Films
• George Cukor Films
• Jimmy Stewart Films
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Love Triangle
• Play Adaptation
• Revenge
• Roland Young Films
• Romantic Comedy
• Weddings

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “classic screwball comedy” — “adapted from Philip Barry’s 1939 Broadway success, which he’d written especially for… Hepburn” — was Hepburn’s strategically chosen “vehicle for her return to Hollywood after a two-year hiatus” due to being “designated box office poison”. Peary notes that Hepburn “got to play with her own public image, in an effort to show that underneath her haughty, classy exterior… she was vulnerable and loyal”. Indeed, the central premise of the film revolves around Hepburn’s character “com[ing] to see her own imperfect side”, and embracing herself as a “woman” rather than a “priggish goddess”. Yet as Peary points out, “the major problem with the play-film is that [Hepburn’s] Tracy Lord never seems like a prig or someone who will accept only perfection”, given that “she is eccentric, funny, wild, and tolerant of unconventional people, like her flighty mother (Mary Nash), quirky younger sister (Virginia Weidler), and dirty old uncle (Roland Young).”

Peary further writes that “two other problems are that Grant is too passive a character and that Hussey really gets mistreated by Stewart without telling him off” — but he notes that “despite all, this is a scintillating comedy, because the acting by the wonderful cast transcends the material”. In addition, “as directed by George Cukor, the comic dialogues have a marvelous rhythm… The characters could be speaking Japanese, but so snappy are their comebacks and so sly are their expressions that we’d laugh anyway”. I’m in full agreement with Peary’s overall assessment: it’s the stellar performances and witty dialogue that ultimately “sell” me on The Philadelphia Story, which I’ll admit to finding a tad too romantically convoluted for my tastes (though at least we’re kept in genuine suspense until the very end about who will end up with whom, and why). However, while not a personal favorite, this classic “comedy of remarriage” — remade with Grace Kelly and Bing Crosby in 1956 as the musical High Society — is most definitely must-see viewing for all film fanatics at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Katharine Hepburn as Tracy Lord
  
• Jimmy Stewart as Macaulay Connor
  
• Ruth Hussey as Liz Imbrie
  
• Cary Grant as C.K. Dexter Haven
  
• Virginia Weidler as Dinah Lord
  
• Witty dialogue:
  

  Nash: “We must just be ourselves… Very much ourselves.”
  Weidler: [Without missing a beat] “But you want us to make a good impression, don’t you?”

Must See?
Yes, as a beloved classic and for the standout performances.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• TCM Article
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• FilmSite Review
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
Three sailors on leave for the day in New York City become romantically involved with a trio of girls: Ozzie (Jules Munshin) encounters a sexy scientist (Ann Miller) in a museum; Chip (Frank Sinatra) is aggressively pursued by a cab driver (Betty Garrett); and Gabey (Gene Kelly) falls for the girl of his dreams (Vera-Allen) when he spots her on a poster as “Miss Turnstiles”, not realizing she actually hails from a small town.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ann Miller Films
• Frank Sinatra Films
• Gene Kelly Films
• Mistaken Identities
• Musicals
• New York City
• Romantic Comedy
• Sailors
• Stanley Donen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “irresistible, cheer-you-up Betty-Comden-Adolph Green musical” — “directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen” — features “lively” songs and “exuberant” dancing. He points out that Kelly’s character “is extremely likable” (note how sweet he is to his “ugly blind date” [Alice Pearce]), and notes how nice it is “to see how well the three female characters get along”, despite having just met each other hours earlier. Of the female leads, Garrett is especially memorable — and “really appealing” — in a hilariously aggressive turn as a “spunky cabbie” who immediately knows what she wants from Sinatra’s “initially shy” character. As for Vera-Allen, while Peary argues that she “makes a good dancing partner for Kelly because she also has an athletic style”, he complains that she lacks the “‘star power’ of some of his other partners”; I agree that she’s well-cast but not all that charismatic in the role.

Peary complains that the wonderful “Bernstein-Edens score could use a couple of more standards to go with ‘New York, New York'”, but I heartily disagree; there are enough clever, memorable songs strewn throughout this one (“Come Up To My Place”, “You’re Awful”, and “Count On Me”, to name just a few) to satisfy most musical lovers, and the accompanying choreography is consistently enjoyable. Meanwhile, the film’s fabled location shooting — particularly during the opening sequence — is deservedly noteworthy; one wishes for even more. Although the storyline is incredibly simple and straightforward — the biggest conflict revolves around Miss Turnstiles’ hidden identity, which we know won’t be a problem for amiable Kelly — this allows us to simply sit back and enjoy the show, which remains enormously entertaining up until the tiresome final chase sequence (but who’s quibbling).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine location shooting in the charming opening musical sequence, “New York, New York”
  
• Many enjoyable musical numbers and dance sequences
  
  
  
• Betty Garrett as Hilde
  
• Alice Pearce as Lucy Schmeeler
  
• A memorable score by Leonard Bernstein and Roger Edens (with fun lyrics by screenwriters Adolph Green and Betty Comden)

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine musical classic. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Films of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
As World War I reaches the heart of German-controlled Africa, a boozy boat captain (Humphrey Bogart) and a religious spinster (Katharine Hepburn) whose minister-brother (Robert Morley) has just died make their way down a treacherous river in hopes of torpedoing a German battleship; along the way, they unexpectedly fall in love.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Africa
• At Sea
• Character Arc
• Humphrey Bogart Films
• John Huston
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Missionaries and Revivalists
• Romance
• World War I

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “[director John] Huston and his stars injected humor and playfulness” into this “sure-fire ‘feel-good’ movie”, which remains “perhaps the cinema’s greatest romantic adventure… set in the 20th century”. Adapted from C.S. Forester’s novel, it relates the tale of a mismatched pair of middle-aged individuals who “at first… can’t stand each other” but are drawn together during their “perilous journey”, and “become one of the cinema’s truly wonderful romantic couples”. Although the entire scenario defies belief on nearly every count (with the ending in particular most inconceivable), it’s impossible not to be swayed by the magic of Hepburn and Bogart’s unlikely romance, as neither individual is “reticent about expressing love for the other, even when in the midst of tragedy”. As Peary writes, “their endearing gestures have a cheering effect on the viewer”, and “fifty-three-year old Bogart and 45-year-old Hepburn get sexier by the minute”.

Peary’s rather short review of this enduring classic fails to mention much about its fabled production history (recounted by Hepburn in her creatively titled memoir The Making of the African Queen: Or, How I Went to Africa with Bogart, Bacall and Huston and Almost Lost My Mind). As noted in TCM’s “Behind the Camera” overview, while Hepburn and Huston adored shooting on-location in Africa, Bogart was miserable and couldn’t wait to return back home to “civilization”; fortunately, his wife (Lauren Bacall) was on hand to help make things more tolerable for everyone. Throughout filming — while Huston was tangentially obsessed with hunting an elephant — the cast and crew were bedeviled by all kinds of challenges (torrential rains, wild animals, contaminated water, and much more), thus adding to the authenticity of the final product.

Indeed, it’s remarkably refreshing to see how truly filthy both Bogart and Hepburn get during their onscreen adventures — and it’s equally satisfying to witness how “there is a division of labor” throughout, with Hepburn’s seemingly prim and proper spinster immediately proving herself to be unexpectedly savvy, brave, and thrill-seeking, thereby slowly seducing Bogart’s crusty captain. Though you’d never know it from watching her pumping organ pedals in the film’s opening sequence (a wonderfully droll snapshot of her life as a missionary), Hepburn’s Rose Sayer turns out to be one of cinema’s strongest female protagonists; her character arc is truly a joy to behold. My favorite scene is probably the one in which the couple team together to fix The African Queen, utilizing the “primitive” tools and materials they have at hand (suggested by Hepburn herself), and doing the bulk of their work underwater.

Bogart won an Academy Award for his humorous performance as Charlie Allnut (a great last name!), though as Peary notes, “for some reason the equally fine Hepburn (who based her character [in part] on Eleanor Roosevelt) didn’t even get nominated”; both actors — who literally carry the entire movie — are at the peak of their game. The location shooting (with cinematography by Jack Cardiff) is equally noteworthy — and again, reading about the film’s production history gives one added appreciation for what it took to achieve such authenticity. With that said, I’ll admit to finding the obvious use of rear-screen projection at times to be somewhat distracting; however, one must simply accept this as an artifact of the times.

Finally, the screenplay — co-written by James Agee and Huston, with assistance from Peter Viertel and John Collier — is consistently suspenseful, never dumbing down the material, and allowing for plenty of humorous interplay between the leads. As noted in Bosley Crowther’s review for the New York Times (where he refers to it as “a well-disguised spoof”), the tale “is so personally preposterous and socially bizarre that it would take a lot of doing to be made convincing in the cold, clear light of day” — and “so Mr. Huston merits credit for putting this fantastic tale on a level of sly, polite kidding and generally keeping it there, while going about the happy business of engineering excitement and visual thrills.” Well put, Mr. Crowther.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Humphrey Bogart as Charlie Allnut (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year)
  
• Katharine Hepburn as Rose Sayer (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year)
  
• Jack Cardiff’s cinematography
  
• Fine location shooting in the Belgian Congo
  
• James Agee and John Huston’s script

Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyable romantic-adventure.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• DVD Talk Review
• TCM Articles
• TV Guide Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
While vacationing at their summer home on Golden Pond, an elderly couple — friendly Ethel (Katharine Hepburn) and crotchety Norman (Henry Fonda), who has a troubled relationship with his grown daughter (Jane Fonda) — agree to care for the sullen teenage son (Doug McKeon) of Fonda’s fiance (Dabney Coleman).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Elderly People
• Father and Child
• Grown Children
• Henry Fonda Films
• Jane Fonda Films
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Play Adaptation

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary correctly notes that the Oscar-winning script for this “surprise moneymaker” — which earned 80-year-old Henry Fonda his first Oscar, and Hepburn her fourth — is “shameless schmaltz where every line is shrewdly calculated to tug at the heart string”; yet he argues that it’s nonetheless “hard not to be taken with” it. He notes that while “we’ve seen the same problematic relationships — cranky old man and lonely young boy, cold old man and his unloved adult child — in other films (and TV movies), … they’re rooted in real life and are hard not to respond to.” He further points out that the film “has special meaning to viewers” given that “Henry Fonda and Jane Fonda had an estranged relationship for many years, until reconciliation late in his life” — just as happens to their characters in the film. Meanwhile, it’s gorgeously shot (on location in New Hampshire) by D.P. Billy Williams, and consistently beautiful to look at.

Unfortunately, however, I can’t profess to sharing Peary’s guilty fondness for this enormously popular film (the top-grossing movie of 1981), which I find not only calculated and derivative but poorly structured. The emotional pay-off we’re waiting for is clearly the reconciliation between Henry and Jane, yet Jane’s underdeveloped character is hardly onscreen, and the bulk of the film focuses instead on Henry’s mentoring of McKeon. In sum, narrative priorities are confused: if this was meant to be a film about an emotionally troubled young teen coming of age in a gorgeous setting under the guidance of a curmudgeonly yet caring grandfather-figure, then McKeon’s character needed to be written with much more depth and insight.

Despite these serious complaints, however, the lead performances in OGP are certainly a joy to watch, and Hepburn and Fonda Sr. do indeed “rise above their roles”. As Peary writes, Fonda Sr. in particular is “wonderful in this role because he seems to really understand all his character’s strengths, quirks, self-doubts (especially in regard to aging), weaknesses, and flaws — particularly as a father”. Film fanatics will likely want to check out this film once simply to see him in his swan song (and to see Hepburn’s “energetic performance” as well).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Henry Fonda as Norman Thayer
  
• Katharine Hepburn as Ethel Thayer
  
• Gorgeous cinematography by Billy Williams
  

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for the powerful lead performances.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A socially ambitious young woman (Katharine Hepburn) lies about her family’s status to impress her wealthy new beau (Fred MacMurray); meanwhile, her mother (Ann Shoemaker) — desperate to give Hepburn and her brother (Frank Albertson) a better chance in life — convinces Hepburn’s father (Fred Stone) to betray his loyal employer (Charley Grapewin) by starting his own business.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cross-Class Romance
• Fred MacMurray Films
• George Stevens Films
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Small Town America
• Social Climbers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Katharine Hepburn had one of her greatest successes playing the young heroine of Booth Tarkington’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel” about a “smart, imaginative, energetic, yet dissatisfied small-town girl” who “covets being on equal social footing with her richer acquaintances” and “is so obsessed with improving her social standing that she assumes an affected attitude whenever she leaves her house”. Peary argues that “we’d dislike [Hepburn’s Alice] except that we admire her love for and loyalty to [her family members], despite their constantly letting her down and causing her grief”; and he points out that “we understand her desperate need to escape her sad home life”. He posits that women may “like this film better than men because they can relate to Alice blowing it in public, in front of an attractive man, by trying too hard, talking too much, and smiling and laughing in an attempt to conceal… nervousness and embarrassment”, but he adds that he personally finds “it too painful to watch”.

Speaking as a female viewer, I can firmly attest that I don’t find the film any less disturbing than Peary; indeed, it’s nearly as depressing as Hepburn’s notorious downer of a debut film, A Bill of Divorcement (1932). I’m ultimately most in agreement with the assessment provided by DVD Savant, who notes that Alice Adams is “beautifully put together… but raises a number of issues that can’t be easily dismissed” — most specifically the puzzling nature of MacMurray’s attraction to Hepburn. Sure, she’s pretty, but he’s supposedly engaged to his wealthy (and equally pretty) cousin — so what in the world is he doing pursuing Hepburn? We learn absolutely nothing about him — he functions purely as a projection of Hepburn’s fantasies; while it’s clear as day that she’s putting him on, he simply grins at her like a vacuous dolt.

Also frustrating is the film’s tendency to shift in tone between poignant social drama and comedy; meanwhile, the utterly unrealistic denouement between Stone and Grapewin — as well as the obviously tacked-on happy ending (deviating from the original novel) — leave one feeling somewhat cheated (though Peary himself claims to “find [the ending] a relief after watching Alice suffer”).

With that said, the film has much to recommend it — beginning with Hepburn’s passionately committed, nuanced portrayal as Alice. In his Alternate Oscars, Peary names Hepburn Best Actress of the Year for her work here, and it’s hard to argue with his choice. Although she’s an infuriating protagonist to sympathize with — not to mention frustratingly variable (one moment painfully awkward, the next coyly flirtatious) — Hepburn nonetheless brings her to achingly vulnerable life. Meanwhile, the supporting cast (consisting of many little-known faces) is excellent all around — most notably circus performer Fred Stone as Alice’s sad sack father; Frank Albertson as her wastrel brother (who perfectly embodies the cynical antithesis of Alice’s socially conscientious desperation); and droll Hattie McDaniel (in a “scene-stealing performance”) as Malena.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Katharine Hepburn as Alice Adams
  
• Fred Stone as Virgil Adams
  
• Frank Albertson as Walter Adams
  
• Hattie McDaniel as Malena
  
• Charley Grapewin as Mr. Lamb
  
• Luminous cinematography by Robert De Grasse
  

Must See?
Yes, once, for Hepburn’s Oscar-nominated performance.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article
• DVD Savant Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A shellshocked veteran (John Barrymore) regains his sanity and returns home to find that his wife (Billie Burke) is now engaged to another man (Paul Cavanagh); meanwhile, his grown daughter (Katharine Hepburn) fears for her future with her fiance (David Manners) when she learns that her father’s mental illness may not be entirely due to the war.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Divorce
• Father and Child
• George Cukor Films
• John Barrymore Films
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Mental Illness
• Play Adaptations

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is spot-on in his lambasting review of this “stagy, hokey adaptation [directed by George Cukor] of Clemence Dane‘s bad play”. He accurately notes that “the overwrought characters take turns being the martyr”, without any relief in sight; indeed, for those who enjoy watching likable characters suffer (and/or Barrymore at his hammiest), this film should suit the bill nicely. On the plus side, Burke (in a substantial role) actually gives a reasonably nuanced performance, rather than resorting to her typically ditzy socialite mannerisms; knowing that she suffered the loss of her real-life husband (Flo Ziegfeld) during the filming adds gravitas to her portrayal. Meanwhile, Peary points out that the film “at least… has historical significance in that it featured skinny Hepburn’s screen debut”, and she alone makes it worth a one-time look. While producer David O. Selznick was apparently concerned that audiences wouldn’t take to Hepburn, she’s positively luminous here (thanks in part to gorgeous cinematography by Sidney Hickox); one can easily understand why she went on to become a major — if resolutely iconoclastic — Hollywood star.

Note: Hepburn’s creative collaboration with Cukor lasted throughout the next 17 years, resulting in a total of eight theatrical films, including the following titles: Little Women (1933), Sylvia Scarlett (1935), Holiday (1938), The Philadelphia Story (1940), Keeper of the Flame (1942), Adam’s Rib (1949), and Pat and Mike (1952).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Katharine Hepburn as Sydney Fairfield
  
• Billie Burke as Meg Fairfield
  

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look simply out of historical curiosity.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Review
• TCM Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When a ditzy heiress (Carole Lombard) befriends a “forgotten man” (William Powell) she meets while on a scavenger hunt, she invites him to work as a butler for her family, and quickly finds herself falling in love with him — unaware that he’s really a wealthy businessman in disguise. Meanwhile, her resentful sister (Gail Patrick) is determined to make life miserable for Godfrey (Powell), while her father (Eugene Pallette) struggles to keep his family’s spending under control, and her mother (Alice Brady) amuses herself with her mooching protege (Mischa Auer).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carole Lombard Films
• Class Relations
• Heiresses
• Mistaken Identities
• Romantic Comedy
• William Powell Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that the “interesting premise” of this “classic screwball comedy” — that “it is the bum who has manners and discipline [while] the society clan are wild”:

— is ruined by the plot “twist” (given away early) that Godfrey (Powell) is actually a millionaire in disguise. He posits that while screenwriters Eric Hatch and Morrie Ryskind “may have had praiseworthy intentions” by wanting “Powell to discuss cynically both the plight and the nobility of the unemployed during the Depression”, director “Gregory La Cava has trouble maintaining a humorous thread while injecting serious themes”; he argues that “if the film’s going to attempt social criticism, it shouldn’t be so timid about it”. He concludes his review by noting that the “film succeeds not because of the story or direction but because of the spirited performances”, with “suave Powell and daffy Lombard [possessing] some great moments together”.

I can’t quite agree with most of Peary’s sentiments, given that I find the fast-paced screenplay consistently clever and witty, and don’t have any problem with the way Powell’s mysterious character is written. Indeed, it’s likely that if the social themes were taken more seriously, the entire affair would ultimately be much less successful as a wacky screwball flick. Peary’s right, however, to call out the fine performances by Lombard and Powell, who do indeed possess great chemistry together; it’s especially touching to know that they were divorced, yet still affectionate enough towards one other to maintain good relations.

I’m also fond of the supporting performances throughout this ensemble piece — most notably gravelly-voiced character actor Eugene Pallette as the family’s harried patriarch, and fey Franklin Pangborn in an early bit role as the officiant for the scavenger hunt (a wonderful extended scene) that propels the plot into action.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Carole Lombard as Irene Bullock (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• William Powell as Godfrey (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Eugene Pallette as Alexander Bullock: “Life in this family is one subpoena after the other.”
  
• Franklin Pangborn in a bit part as a scavenger hunt official
  
• Fine cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine screwball classic. Added to the National Film Registry in 1999, and listed as #44 on AFI’s “100 Funniest Movies”.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TV Guide Review
• Q Network Review
• FilmSite Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A globe-trotting political journalist (Katharine Hepburn) and an easy-going sports writer (Spencer Tracy) fall in love, but find their marriage strained by Hepburn’s hectic lifestyle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Career-versus-Marriage
• Fay Bainter Films
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• George Stevens Films
• Journalists
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Marital Problems
• Romantic Comedy
• Spencer Tracy Films
• Strong Females
• William Bendix Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that just as “Spencer Tracy’s sportswriter and Katharine Hepburn’s political columnist… can feel the chemistry” the first time they “lay eyes on each other”, viewers “can immediately feel the chemistry between the stars in their first scene together on screen”. He points out that we get to experience the unique “joy” of “watching their characters get to know each other”, given that we now know “we’re also watching the stars develop their inimitable interplay” — one that endured throughout their real-life romance as well as through eight additional films together. He argues that the “film is hurt by silly and overly sentimental plot contrivances, and because once they’re married neither character is very appealing”, but counters that “Tracy and Hepburn ride out the rocky road”.

I’m actually more a fan of Ring Lardner, Jr. and Michael Kanin’s Oscar-winning script than Peary is. While there are certainly some “silly… plot contrivances” — as when Hepburn “adopts a Greek orphan without consulting Tracy and then hasn’t the time to be a mother” — this is par for the course in a screwball romantic comedy like WOTY, which is never anything less than delightfully zany in its portrayal of Hepburn’s over-the-topness (after all, her “Tess” is shown speaking no less than half a dozen languages fluently!). Meanwhile, as Peary argues, “what’s most fascinating about the film is Hepburn’s uninhibitedly sexual performance”, with her “sexiness com[ing] from how she uses her eyes, voice, body, and, more significantly, her mind prior to lovemaking”. Indeed, Hepburn’s intelligence is a major turn-on — not just for Tracy (who secretly seems to love his wife’s genius), but for audience members, who can easily embrace Hepburn’s Tess Harding as a feminist icon for the ages. (Now this is the pioneering female journalist we wanted to see more of in A Woman Rebels!)

The enduring question about Woman of the Year is whether its views on gender roles and marital responsibilities have dated terribly (as Peary argues is the case with all the Tracy-and-Hepburn films). It’s true that the final scene — showcasing Hepburn’s disastrous attempts to make breakfast for her husband, a la Buster Keaton in The Navigator (1924) — would seem to hint that the characters have finally caved to sexist mid-century mores; but listen carefully, and you’ll find that this really isn’t the case. Indeed, while Hepburn is clearly made out to be the “villain” throughout the film — with poor, put-upon Tracy simply enduring her hectic lifestyle until he finally puts his foot down — the moral of the story isn’t that Hepburn should give up her phenomenal success for the sake of being a housewife. Rather, the lesson being taught is a remarkably modern one: the need for compromise and balance in any relationship.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Katharine Hepburn as Tess Harding (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Spencer Tracy as Sam Craig (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  
• Plenty of believable onscreen chemistry between Hepburn and Tracy
  
• Tess’s addled attempt to make breakfast; click here to listen to a fun podcast by www.thescarlettolive.com about “food in film” which briefly addresses this scene
  
• An enjoyably witty screenplay by Ring Lardner, Jr. and Michael Kanin
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Tracy and Hepburn’s most enjoyable pictures together.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• Time Out Capsule Review
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
A lawyer (Katharine Hepburn) defending a woman (Judy Holliday) who shot her faithless husband (Tom Ewell) and his lover (Jean Hagen) finds her marriage strained when her husband (Spencer Tracy) is assigned as prosecutor in the case.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Battle-of-the-Sexes
• Courtroom Drama
• Feminism and Women’s Issues
• George Cukor Films
• Jean Hagen Films
• Judy Holliday Films
• Katharine Hepburn Films
• Lawyers
• Marital Problems
• Romantic Comedy
• Spencer Tracy Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Real-life lovers Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy co-starred in no less than nine films together, beginning with Woman of the Year in 1942 (where they met on set and fell in love), and culminating shortly before Tracy’s death with Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967). This “middle entry” in their collective oeuvre — directed by George Cukor — represents the duo at their most comfortable, playing (appropriately enough) a childless, middle-aged couple (“Adam” and “Amanda”) at the height of their careers, happily married until they become pitched in an ideological battle against one another. As Peary writes, the “bright script by married Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon deserves praise for being a Hollywood film that not only mentioned the term ‘sexual equality’ back in 1949, but also attempted to be something much more significant than the typical battle of the sexes.” He writes that Amanda “uses the trial as a forum to denounce the sexism that prevails in society”; and while “[Adam] accuses her of making a mockery of the law”, in reality it’s “his masculine pride [that] is hurt”, forcing him to “use feminine wiles to get his wife back”.

Peary argues that Adam’s Rib is “probably Hepburn and Tracy’s best film” (I disagree; I think Woman of the Year merits that slot), but that “it has dated as badly as the others”. He accurately notes that “like the others, it must be seen in the light of its era to appreciate that it was ahead of its time in its treatment of sexual politics” (though isn’t that advice true when viewing most early-20th-century Hollywood films?). He further notes that “the characters do so much grandstanding that the issues get blurred”, which doesn’t really bother me; what I find much more irritating (though unmentioned in Peary’s review) is David Wayne’s performance as Amanda’s would-be suitor, playing an annoying songwriter whose interest in Amanda is poorly conceived through and through. Fortunately, he’s mostly overshadowed by his co-stars — not just Tracy and Hepburn (both in fine if somewhat predictable form), but a memorable Judy Holliday in her breakthrough film role. Meanwhile, Kanin and Gordon’s script is generally smart enough to overcome its occasional narrative flaws, particularly in its honest depiction of marital tensions experienced by an older-than-Hollywood-average couple (in their 40s!).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Katharine Hepburn as Amanda Bonner (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• Spencer Tracy as Adam Bonner
  
• Judy Holliday as Doris Attinger
  
• A refreshingly candid look at a happy marriage under tension
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Tracy and Hepburn’s best outings together.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TCM Articles
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
An unhappy man (John Heard) with a mentally ill mother (Gloria Grahame) and a deadbeat roommate (Peter Riegert) reminisces obsessively about the love of his life (Mary Beth Hurt), who has left him to return to her A-frame selling husband (Mark Metcalf).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Flashback Films
• Gloria Grahame Films
• Obsessive Love
• Winning Him/Her Back

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that Joan Micklin Silver’s “offbeat” adaptation of Ann Beattie’s novel — about a man whose “obsessiveness, jealousy, and constant flattery drive [the married woman he loves] back to her husband” — has “many special, funny, charming moments”; but he complains that “Heard and Hurt [are] off putting” as “screen characters”. It’s true that Heard’s boring, whiny protagonist isn’t exactly likable (he edges dangerously close to stalker tendencies), while Hurt’s chronic indecisiveness about her romantic life eventually becomes simply tiresome. Then again, these characters — effectively played by Heard and Hurt — are both eminently realistic: who hasn’t known people struggling with similar concerns, if to a less extreme degree?

Indeed, it’s exactly such fidelity to real-life relationship woes that likely endears audiences to both the film and the book, which collectively possess a small cult following.

In his review, Peary argues that while Heard and Hurt “may be real characters”, he “never believe[s] their responses to each other” — a complaint which seems to speak to the screenplay’s literary origins. While I don’t personally have any trouble believing in Heard and Hurt’s interactions, other elements of the screenplay — such as Heard’s repeated dealings with a frustrated blind vendor — come across as overly scripted. It’s also frustrating to see so little made of some of the most interesting supporting characters — i.e., Gloria Grahame as Heard’s loony mom (film fanatics will be thrilled to recognize her, and disappointed by how little screentime she’s given):

and Hurt’s put-upon husband “Ox” (with a name like that, wouldn’t you like to learn just a bit more about him?).

However, the film itself — expertly directed by Silver — is certainly worth a one-time look, especially given its minor cult status.

Note: Peary concludes his review by noting that he finds “the original [upbeat] ending” from the film’s previous release (in 1979, under the alternate title Head Over Heels) to be “more logical” — but this will be a moot point for modern viewers, who unfortunately won’t have the opportunity to compare versions.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Mary Beth Hurt as Laura
  
• John Heard as Charles
  
• Fine wintertime cinematography (appropriately enough!)
  

Must See?
Yes, once — as a cult favorite.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Cinematic Threads Capsule Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review