Strike Me Pink (1936)

Strike Me Pink (1936)

“When confronted with danger, be prompt — be rash — be bold; dominate the situation!”

Synopsis:
A meek tailor (Eddie Cantor) gains newfound confidence from a correspondence course, and is hired to manage an amusement park threatened by gangsters, who want to infuse it with crooked slot machines.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Character Arc
  • Comedy
  • Eddie Cantor Films
  • Gangsters
  • Musicals

Review:
This final entry in Eddie Cantor’s career at Samuel Goldwyn studios (where he made one big-budget musical per year, from 1930 to 1936) is reminiscent of Harold Lloyd’s comedies — so it’s not surprising to learn that Goldwyn originally wanted Lloyd for the lead role (indeed, the script was written with him in mind). The storyline is slight as can be (crooked slot machines?!), but film fanatics may be curious to check this one out simply to see Broadway chanteuse Ethel Merman in one of her relatively few early onscreen roles — here playing the shady nightclub singer Cantor is hopelessly in love with. Also of interest are some — er — interestingly choreographed dances (see still below).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • An opportunity to see and hear Ethel Merman in her prime
  • Some surreal dance sequences

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Cantor fans.

Links:

Desk Set (1957)

Desk Set (1957)

“They can’t build a machine to do our job.”

Synopsis:
A team of reference librarians (Katharine Hepburn, Joan Blondell, Dina Merrill, and Sue Randall) at the Federal Broadcasting Company worry that their jobs are at stake when an efficiency expert (Spencer Tracy) arrives with a fancy new computer.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Gig Young Films
  • Joan Blondell Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Play Adaptation
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Spencer Tracy Films

Review:
Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy’s second-to-last film together was this dry adaptation (directed by Walter Lang) of a Broadway play by William Marchant. Although the issue of human obsolescence in the face of an increasingly powerful electronic universe remains just as relevant today as ever, the subject matter as presented here comes across as hopelessly dated and simplistic, with the ultimate moral of the film — that computers can’t ever fully replace human ingenuity — a boring no-brainer for modern audiences. Meanwhile, the screenplay is badly paced and overly stagy, flitting here and there between various subplots and ultimately falling flat. With that said, Hepburn is as fully invested in her role as ever, and her solid rapport with Tracy remains a comforting treat. However, this one is ultimately only must-see for Hepburn/Tracy completists.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Bunny
  • Typically fine rapport between Tracy and Hepburn
  • Nice use of Cinemascope

Must See?
No, though of course Tracy/Hepburn fans won’t want to miss it.

Links:

Pat and Mike (1952)

Pat and Mike (1952)

“I don’t think you’ve ever been properly handled.”

Synopsis:
A shady sports promoter (Spencer Tracy) offers to help manage the professional career of a gifted female athlete (Katharine Hepburn) who finds herself strangely flummoxed whenever her professor-fiance (William Ching) watches her compete.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aldo Ray Films
  • George Cukor Films
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Romantic Comedy
  • Spencer Tracy Films
  • Sports

Review:
Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy’s seventh joint film was this jaunty romantic comedy situated within the cinematically unique world of women’s sports. The film’s unusual setting serves as its calling card, as we’re provided with a refreshingly ethnographic look at this milieu, with a handful of real-life female athletic stars (such as Babe Didrikson Zaharias and Alice Marble) appearing onscreen in “competition” with Hepburn. Hepburn was a gifted athlete in her own right, and is 100% believable in her role here; indeed, screenwriters Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon — friends of Hepburn and Tracy — wrote the script with her talents in mind. Meanwhile, her rapport with Tracy (having fun playing a somewhat morally dubious character) is as predictably solid as always, and William Ching is fine in a humorous role as her jinxing beau.

The storyline itself, while slight, is drolly witty, and nicely handled by director George Cukor; I’m especially fond of scenes involving Tracy’s hoodish “colleagues”, who are disappointed by his decision to go straight with Hepburn — watch how Hepburn defends “her man” against them…

Note: Hepburn reportedly named this as her favorite film made with Tracy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Pat
  • Spencer Tracy as Mike
  • A fascinating glimpse at ’50s “women’s” sports

  • Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon’s Oscar-nominated script

Must See?
Yes, as a most enjoyable Tracy/Hepburn flick.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Incredible Shrinking Woman, The (1981)

Incredible Shrinking Woman, The (1981)

“To my family, I’d become a doll — and to our dog, a chew-stick.”

Synopsis:
After exposure to a multitude of household chemicals, a housewife (Lily Tomlin) begins shrinking, much to the horror of her husband (Charles Grodin) and two kids (Shelby Balik and Justin Dana). Meanwhile, her husband’s boss (Ned Beatty) conspires with her doctors (Henry Gibson and Elizabeth Wilson) and the leaders (Tom Keller, Jim McMullan, and Pamela Bellwood) of a secret organization to capture Tomlin and use her blood as part of a plan for world domination.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Fantasy
  • Lily Tomlin Films
  • Living Nightmare
  • Ned Beatty Films
  • Science Fiction
  • World Domination

Review:
Joel Schumacher made his directorial debut helming this reasonably entertaining — though clearly inferior — comedic follow-up to the 1957 sci-fi classic The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) (based on Richard Matheson’s novel The Shrinking Man). In this modernized version of Matheson’s story (scripted by Tomlin’s long-time collaborator and parter, Jane Wagner), the protagonist is a woman instead of a man, and the proposed culprit for her situation — a deluge of household chemicals:

— plays upon newfound societal fears about environmental contaminants. Unfortunately, Tomlin is a bit too bland in the title role as a happily married housewife faced with the ultimate nightmare:

(though she has fun in a secondary role playing a helpful neighbor named Judith Beasley), and the screenplay misses out on ripe opportunities for more incisive social commentary — either about the contested role of housewives in a male-dominated society, or the escalating presence of unknown chemicals in our everyday lives. Sadly, the film eventually devolves into a silly world-domination subplot involving — sigh — a captive humanoid gorilla (famed makeup artist Rick Baker in a suit), rather than allowing Tomlin’s character to sink ever further into the horrors of increasing diminution (as is handled so effectively in the original film). However, while The Incredible Shrinking Woman is certainly no classic, the special effects are nicely handled, and it’s enjoyably loopy enough to merit a look by curious film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lily Tomlin as Judith Beasley
  • Impressive special effects and sets

Must See?
No, though film fanatics may be curious to check it out given its connection to Jack Arnold’s 1957 classic (and Matheson’s novel).

Links:

Windy City (1984)

Windy City (1984)

“I have nothing to say. I am not a writer.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring writer (John Shea) enlists the help of his childhood buddies in supporting their dying friend (Josh Mostel); meanwhile, he reminisces about a former girlfriend (Kate Capshaw) who has since become engaged to another man.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Friendship
  • Winning Him/Her Back

Review:
Two years after penning the uninspired screenplay for Francis Ford Coppola’s otherwise impressive One From the Heart (1982), Armyan Bernstein wrote and directed this dull ensemble piece about a group of lifelong friends growing up in Chicago and facing a variety of concerns. The film is eminently forgettable on every count, given that we don’t care about any of the poorly developed characters, who spout trite dialogue (“I guess some people aren’t replaceable”) and generally act like overgrown adolescents. There’s potential for something heartfelt in a subplot about a dying friend in the gang, played with pathos by Mostel (the one live spark in the bunch):

— but this is swallowed up by the shallow central narrative about Shea’s longing for his now-engaged former girlfriend (Capshaw).

Bernstein is clearly a film buff, given how many cinematic allusions he incorporates throughout his movie — i.e., the film opens on a scene of the boyhood friends watching an Errol Flynn swashbuckler on television:

and at one point the camera pans strategically past a revival theater marquee advertising A Guy Named Joe. However, these allusions simply highlight how shallow Bernstein’s own picture is. Ironically, Shea’s character (an aspiring writer, ostensibly based on Bernstein himself) breaks up with his girlfriend after they argue about his failure to work on his craft; she insists that he “has stories to tell”, while he yells back, “I have nothing to say” — a point we (sadly) can’t help immediately agreeing with.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Not much.

Must See?
No; definitely feel free to skip this one.

Links:

Woman of the Year (1942)

Woman of the Year (1942)

“You don’t think I can do all the ordinary little things that any idiot can do, do you?”

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:

Adam’s Rib (1949)

Adam’s Rib (1949)

“Lawyers should never marry other lawyers; this is called in-breeding.”

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:

Blonde Bombshell / Bombshell (1933)

Blonde Bombshell / Bombshell (1933)

“Deep down in every girl’s heart there’s the desire for the rite of real womanhood.”

Synopsis:
Fed up with her mooching brother (Ted Healy), tippling father (Frank Morgan), overbearing publicist (Lee Tracy), and demanding director (Pat O’Brien), a sexy movie star (Jean Harlow) makes various attempts to escape from her hectic Hollywood lifestyle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Adoption
  • Comedy
  • Hollywood
  • Jean Harlow Films
  • Pat O’Brien Films

Review:
Victor Fleming directed this relentlessly-paced, incisive pre-Code satire, starring Jean Harlow in a role purportedly based on Clara Bow. The clever storyline — adapted from a 1928 stage play by Caroline Francke and Mack Crane — shadows Harlow’s numerous failed attempts to seek some semblance of privacy and autonomy in Hollywood, first by nearly marrying a questionable marquis (Ivan Lebedeff):

then by trying to adopt a baby:

and finally by becoming engaged to a wealthy American (Franchot Tone) whose snooty parents (C. Aubrey Smith and Mary Forbes) are distinctly wary of their son’s new love interest.

Meanwhile, her meddling publicist — played by heavy-drinking pre-Code actor Lee Tracy, probably best known for his role the same year in Dinner at Eight (1933) — tries to earn Harlow’s romantic affections while strategically foiling each of her ventures.

There’s plenty here for fans of pre-Code comedies to enjoy, from racy dialogue to impressively frantic pacing to Harlow’s spot-on screechy performance; it’s definitely worth a look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Jean Harlow as Lola
  • Lee Tracy as Space
  • An enjoyably loopy screenplay
  • Clever pre-Code dialogue:

    “Your day off is sure brutal on your negligee.”
    “Where I kick her, the camera’ll never pick up the scar.”

Must See?
Yes, as a fine vehicle for Harlow. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Woman Rebels, A (1936)

Woman Rebels, A (1936)

“Even though I’m a woman, I have brains — I intend to use them.”

Synopsis:
A defiant young woman (Katharine Hepburn) in Victorian England rebels against her autocratic father (Donald Crisp) by having an affair with a man (Van Heflin) she soon learns is already married. When her newly married sister (Elizabeth Allan) dies shortly before giving birth, the secretly pregnant Hepburn decides to raise her child as her niece while forging a career for herself as a groundbreaking journalist; meanwhile, she refuses to marry a kind diplomat (Herbert Marshall) out of fear that her secret will be revealed and cause a scandal.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Donald Crisp Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Herbert Marshall Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Morality Police
  • Van Heflin Films

Review:
This little-seen Katharine Hepburn vehicle (based on Netta Syrett‘s 1930 novel Portrait of a Rebel) is primarily remembered as Hepburn’s third box office flop in a row for RKO studios — and unfortunately, it’s easy to see why the film failed to catch on with audiences. It’s ultimately a missed opportunity, relying far too heavily on melodramatic conventions rather than capitalizing on its more interesting feminist premise. Although Hepburn’s “Pam Thistlewaite” defiantly declares that she “has brains and intends to use them”, we see only snippets of her brave attempts to penetrate the glass ceiling in Victorian England — as epitomized in the following reactions to her attempts to seek employment in “men’s work”:

“A girl as a secretary! Why, bless my soul… I’d be the laughing stock of London.”
“Sorry, can’t be done — a salesgirl in a shop? Unthinkable. My customers wouldn’t tolerate it.”

Her character does eventually find success as an agitating feminist journalist, but unfortunately, little to no time is spent dwelling on this aspect of her life. Instead, the bulk of the narrative focuses on issues of dubious morality, as Hepburn’s “sins” of the past come back to haunt both her and her grown daughter.

With that said, Hepburn is as luminous and charismatic as always, fully embodying a role tailor-made for her sensibilities; and the Oscar-nominated period costumes she wears over the decades are a delight.

However, this one remains must-see only for Hepburn enthusiasts (and those curious to see Herbert Marshall bathing a baby while wearing an apron!).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Pamela
  • Fine period costumes

  • Robert De Grasse’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though Hepburn fans will want to check it out.

Links:

Chilly Scenes of Winter (1982)

Chilly Scenes of Winter (1982)

“You have this exalted view of me, and I hate it.”

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: