Reflections on Blogging and Some Lists of Favorites

I have been writing my blog The Movie Projector for four months now, and I think it is time to pause and reflect on the experience. When I first decided to attempt a movie blog, I was inspired by two other blogs. One was San Francisco Chronicle movie critic Mick LaSalle's blog Maximum Strength Mick. This was the first blog I started reading regularly and the first I started leaving comments on. Normally content merely to read a blog without leaving comments, I noticed that some of his topics elicited reactions from me that I found it hard to keep to myself. I also noticed that some of my reactions were fairly lengthy. Some of the topics I've written about and some of the ideas I've had about them were initially evoked, sometimes indirectly, by topics introduced by Mr. LaSalle.

One of Mick LaSalle's blogs directed me to another blogsite, Riku Writes, this one written by a non-professional film lover like myself, Richard Hourula of Berkeley, California. I liked what I read there and thought that if this movie enthusiast can do it, why don't I give it a try? I used Mr. Hourula's site to get to blogger.com and learn how to set up my own site. I couldn't believe how easy the folks at Google have made it to do this. My first post was published in July 2008 and was an expanded and rewritten version of a very long comment I had left on Maximum Strength Mick.

At first I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted to do on my own site, so I let it evolve essentially on its own. I did know that I wanted to stick to writing about movies and clearly related topics. I also wanted to aim for a style somewhere between formal and informal, so one of the first decisions I made was to publish only once a week to give me time to polish and edit to my satisfaction. (The former English instructor in me demands that I do this.) I also wasn't sure exactly what kinds of movies I would write about, so I stuck with what I am most familiar with and the blog has turned out to be largely about classic movies. Many of the topics have come about directly or indirectly from movies I recently watched on the Turner Classic Movies channel and to a lesser extent on the Independent Film Channel.

I don't tend to do a lot of research on the topics I write about. I do use the Internet Movie Database for details, and I wouldn't be able to write in such factual detail without that resource. I also use Wikipedia for biographical information. I use these two sources largely from laziness, because they are so easy to access while I'm writing. I also occasionally use a few reference books that I already own.

I sometimes write from my memories of seeing a movie, and we all know how fallible memory can be. So I now often refer to the TCM website, which contains incredibly detailed synopses, to confirm my recollections about the movies I write about. The first thing I learned about writing a blog was to be very, very careful about checking my facts. The second blog I ever wrote was about the screwball comedy genre, and I was overjoyed when IMDb printed a link to it in its daily "Hit List." But the very first comment I received pointed out a factual error I had made about the plot of It Happened One Night. Now, in truth, I had not seen the movie for a number of years and had to acknowledge that I had misremembered this detail and then correct it in the post.

Other comments I've received made me realize that some readers apparently cannot grasp the concept of a difference of opinion and that any non-professional opinions about movies are by their nature subjective. Richard Hourula wrote a post titled "I Have a Different Opinion, So You're Wrong" that summed it up nicely, although some of the people who have left comments on my blog might have added "and Therefore You're an Idiot." These experiences caused me to add a section in the sidebar asking those leaving comments to do so in a respectful way.

Still other comments I have received make me question whether the person who wrote them actually understood what I was getting at. (As a former teacher of English, I am conditioned to write to a thesis.) Blogs that contain lists at the end seem to elicit responses, but to judge by some of the suggestions about who or what I should or should not have included, I honestly wonder if the writer skipped the beginning of the blog and went directly to the list(s) at the end.

Fortunately, this type of comment seems to be the exception, and I have also received many very nice comments. Some of these were complimentary or agreed with me, which I found quite gratifying. But I also appreciated the comments that added to what I had written about or that disagreed with me civilly. The difference is all in the tone. People so opinionated that they tolerate no disagreement and in fact always take a difference of opinion as a personal insult have always irritated me, whether the genesis of this attitude is egomania or insecurity. I do appreciate polite comments that raise justified questions about what I have written. When I wrote a blog about great character actors and actresses, for example, some of the comments made me realize that my definition of character actor as applied to contemporary performers should have been clarified. A couple of comments even pointed this out directly and did so graciously.

Probably the biggest dilemma I have faced is how much plot synopsis to include in a post. I have read some blogsites where the posts consist largely of lengthy synopses, and I certainly don't want to do this. Mick LaSalle is a master of writing about character and situation without dwelling at length on plot details. But then he is a critic at a daily newspaper and reviews new movies that most people have not seen yet. And he is also one hell of a writer. My goal is to interpret movies, so I feel that I have to relate the point I'm trying to make to what happens in the movie, and this is an incredibly difficult thing to do without having the description of the narrative dominate. I feel compelled to support my interpretive points with specifics from the movie, and this necessarily involves describing to some extent what happens in the movie. The trick is not to describe more than is absolutely required This is damnably hard to do and something I am still struggling to refine.

The other issue I have to deal with is spoilers. I know how readers who have not yet seen the movies I write about feel about spoilers. I want people to want to see these movies, but an essay is different from a review and my natural inclination to adhere to the essay format means that I must at times reveal plot details that I would rather not. Even though I don't want to spoil the movie viewing experience for anyone, I still feel I need to cite pertinent details that support my ideas. I do, however, try to keep this to a minimum, and I have while editing removed or disguised certain things that I thought might discourage readers who haven't already seen the movies I write about from seeking them out.

Sometimes the things I reveal don't make a great deal of difference: Is there any doubt that a screwball comedy from the 1930's will end happily or that the falsely accused person in a Hitchcock movie will ultimately be vindicated? I have come to use as my criterion the ending of Citizen Kane. I remember what a frisson that final revelation gave me the first time I saw it. (It still does, even though I know in advance what is going to happen.) Even though there are probably few serious movie lovers who haven't yet seen this film, there might be a few somewhere, and there is no way I'm going to devalue for them the experience of seeing that last scene for the first time.

I have recently made a few minor changes to my blog. Some comments I received suggested that the commenter hadn't read my previous posts on the same subject, so I started leaving references to them in the text. I recently noticed while reading an interesting new classic movie blogsite called Hollywood Dreamland (which I've added to my list of links in the sidebar) how the author uses labels to draw the reader's attention to other posts on the same subject, and I have now added labels to some of my posts. I also noticed how Richard Hourula has taken advantage of a new feature that lets readers subscribe to his blog, and I too have added this to my sidebar. I've also added a section to the sidebar in which I list the movies I've recently watched and give them a personal rating based on the 4-star system. For some time I had been trying to figure out how I could incorporate a list of my favorite movies that readers could access from the homepage. Both of these sites showed me how to do this by including them in my complete profile.

This has turned out to be a most challenging task. Some time ago I started a list of the best movies I have ever seen. But narrowing this list down to a manageable number and emphasizing not just quality but an enjoyable viewing experience—in other words, turning it truly into a list of my favorite movies—was not an easy thing to do. In just a short time the list has gone through several incarnations. At this point it stands at 50 American, 10 British, and 20 foreign-language movies and is still being tweaked.

The hardest thing to do was to limit the number of movies in a single genre—for example, my favorite musicals, screwball comedies, and films noirs—or movies by a favorite director, and still the list clearly reflects my genre and director preferences. You won't find many Westerns, combat films, science fiction movies, action-adventures, or even "message" films on it, and I've tried to limit myself to no more than two or three films by the same director. One thing that compiling this list of favorite movies showed me was what they tend to have in common, that is, the qualities I most value in a movie: compelling characters, charismatic performers, emotionally involving situations, and vividly pictorial direction.

I'm going to conclude by throwing into this miscellany three lists. One is of my favorite movies by my favorite director of all time, Alfred Hitchcock. In recent posts I named my favorite performances by my #2 favorite actor, James Stewart and my #1 favorite actress, Bette Davis. This time I'm going to list my favorite performances by my #1 favorite actor and my #2 favorite actress. Remember, readers, this is just one person's opinion.

My 10 favorite movies directed by Alfred Hitchcock:

1. North by Northwest (1959)
2. Vertigo (1958)
3. Rear Window (1954)
4. Strangers on a Train (1951)
5. Psycho (1960)
6. Notorious (1946)

7. Foreign Correspondent (1940)
8. Rebecca (1940)

9. The Lady Vanishes (1938)
10. The 39 Steps (1935)

My 10 favorite performances by Cary Grant:

1. North by Northwest (1959)
2. Bringing Up Baby (1938)
3. The Awful Truth (1937)
4. His Girl Friday (1940)
5. Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1947)
6. The Philadelphia Story (1940)
7. To Catch a Thief (1954)
8. Charade (1963)
9. Only Angels Have Wings (1939)
10. The Bishop's Wife (1948)

My 10 favorite performances by Katharine Hepburn:

1. The Philadelphia Story (1940)
2. Long Day's Journey into Night (1962)
3. Bringing Up Baby (1938)
4. Summertime (1955)
5. Woman of the Year (1942)
6. Adam's Rib (1949)
7. Alice Adams (1935)
8. The African Queen (1951)
9. The Lion in Winter (1968)
10. Stage Door (1937)

---

The Funniest Screwball Comedy

Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, and Howard Hawks. A dog, a leopard, and a dinosaur bone. Charlie Ruggles, May Robson, and Barry Fitzgerald. Some of the most hilarious visual and verbal comedy ever put on film. These are the main ingredients of the funniest example of screwball comedy ever made: Bringing Up Baby (1938).

I've written previously of the classic elements of screwball comedy ("An Unsuitable Attachment: The Classic American Screwball Comedy," July 14, 2008), and Bringing Up Baby fulfills the definition of the genre in every respect. Cary Grant plays David Huxley, a paleontologist engaged to be married the next day to his assistant Alice Swallow, an unromantic, bossy, and humorless woman ("I see our marriage purely as a dedication to your work," she tells him at the beginning of the movie). David himself is only slightly less rigid and conventional than his fiancée. He is a dedicated careerist who seems less excited by the prospect of his imminent marriage than by the news that the last missing bone of the brontosaurus skeleton he is erecting has been discovered and will arrive shortly.

But first he must meet and play golf with the lawyer who represents a potential benefactor, Elizabeth Random (May Robson), a rich woman who is considering donating one million dollars to David's museum. It is at the golf course that he has his first unfortunate encounter with a scatter-brained and impetuous heiress named Susan Vance (Katharine Hepburn), a character for whom the term "madcap" might have been invented. She appropriates his golf ball and his car and wrecks both the car and, at least temporarily, David's chances of getting the donation.

Unknown to David, Susan happens to be the niece of Mrs. Random, so it is inevitable that their paths will cross again..and again...and again. In fact, once he meets her a second time that evening in a night club, where he has gone (carrying with him the box containing his precious dinosaur bone) to meet the lawyer and try to salvage his chances for the donation, he is trapped with her in a hellish and hilarious relationship that lasts for the rest of the movie, a relationship that involves him not only with Susan but with her aunt, her fox terrier George, a pet leopard named Baby, and other assorted eccentric characters including a tipsy gardener (Barry Fitzgerald), a befuddled big-game hunter (Charles Ruggles), a self-important psychiatrist, and an officious small-town sheriff.

In truth, this impromptu relationship is the result of Susan's almost instant decision that she is in love with David and that to get him she will do anything to prevent him from making it to his wedding the next day. (I said she was impetuous, didn't I?) As in many screwball comedies of the 1930's and early 1940's, the man is the reluctant object of romantic desire, and the woman is the single-minded pursuer. In Bringing Up Baby it is inarguable that Susan's determination to snare David is the initial force that sets in motion the machinery of the plot. And the plot of Bringing Up Baby is indeed a complex and finely tuned machine that once started hurtles forward at breakneck speed and propels the viewer to everything else that happens in the movie.

What I refer to as everything else is so complicated that it is impossible to summarize briefly. As in the best silent comedies, from a prime situation—here the random encounter at the golf course—the narrative builds in a headlong, unpredictable, and cumulatively intricate way that defies synopsis or even concise description. Just when you think the inventory of comic conventions has been exhausted, that every conceivable comic complication has been laid on, Hawks piles on yet another one.

This film is virtually an encyclopedia of movie comedy. It contains everything: pratfalls—on a slippery Martini olive, into poison ivy, down a hillside, into a river, even from the scaffolding of David's brontosaurus skeleton—verbal miscommunication and talking at cross-purposes, mistaken identity, impersonation, comic deception, even a doppelganger in the form of a second (but feral) leopard. Everything in the movie becomes fodder for comedy: clothing, automobiles, golf, gangsters, circuses, academia, psychiatry, law enforcement. Nothing is too serious or too sacred to be spared Hawks's limitlessly inventive and often acerbic comic imagination. The pace is relentless, leaving the viewer not only breathless but overcome with laughter.

Bringing Up Baby is quite simply the funniest movie I have ever seen. The long sequences in which David and Susan follow George the dog, trying to find where he buried that crucial dinosaur bone he has stolen, and in which David and Susan try to capture the escaped leopard using a croquet mallet and a fish landing net are deliriously funny. And when virtually the entire cast, including the leopard, converges on the local jail and Susan pretends to be the hard-boiled leader of a gang of bank robbers, the movie has so far departed from any semblance of reality, logic, and normal human behavior that it seems to inhabit a universe of its own, not unlike one of the more outlandish Marx Brothers movies or plays of Oscar Wilde: silliness so sublime that it is elevated to art.

You might think that with all these mad plot complications, and with all this hilarious physical and verbal comedy going on, the characters would take a back seat. Yet that is not the case, for the characters of Susan and David as impersonated by Hepburn and Grant are the glue that holds the movie together. They are the force that moves the film from the clever mechanics of comedy to the humanity of an evolving romantic relationship.

In a recent blog ("The Definitive Screwball Comedy," September 1, 2008) I described how the main characters in another screwball comedy, The Awful Truth, a married couple who separate and then reconcile at the last moment, were ideally suited to each other all along and that their notions of incompatibility are nonsense. In Bringing Up Baby the situation could hardly be more different. In this movie Susan and David are complete opposites and truly seem to be wholly unsuited to each other.

Yet it is precisely their opposite temperaments and behavior that, paradoxically, make them the ideal match. Susan, like her pet leopard, is untamed, unpredictable, and predatory. (Her pursuit of David might today be referred to as "stalking.") Compared to Susan, David, like his dinosaur, is ossified, without flesh and blood, and lacking animation. She is emotional; he is rational. She is all impulse; he is all control. To put it in Freudian terms, if she is ruled by her id, then he is ruled by his superego. Separately, each is an unbalanced and incomplete personality. Each needs the other to supply the missing parts of his or her temperament, for only together will each become a complete and integrated personality. To accomplish this, Susan has to gain self-control and gravity, and David must learn to loosen his self-control and let himself go.

This is exactly what happens at the end of Bringing Up Baby. Susan applies herself to seriously looking for the missing bone and when she finds it a few days later contritely delivers it to David at the museum. The now subdued Susan tells him that her aunt gave her the million dollars and that she in turn has decided to donate it to the museum herself. And when she apologizes for her behavior, David, who earlier had told her, "Our relationship has been a series of misadventures from beginning to end," finally thaws. "I just discovered that was the best day I had in my whole life," he confesses. "I never had a better time." When the dinosaur skeleton collapses in the last scene and David lifts Susan to the now isolated platform overlooking a pile of dinosaur bones and embraces her, it is more than just another hilarious sight gag. It is the visual evidence that Susan has finally succeeded in her pursuit of David and has now conquered the last remaining rival for his affection—his obsessive devotion to his work.

Regular readers of this blog may well be wondering why, having already named The Awful Truth as the definitive screwball comedy, I am writing about Bringing Up Baby as though that title belonged to it. The truth is that each of these movies is, in its own way, a definitive version of the screwball comedy. But the two films are so different that any consideration of the two movies together results in the proverbial Apples and Oranges situation: yes, they are both fruit, but they are otherwise so unalike that any attempt at comparison would seem impossibly problematic .

One comparison that is possible, though, is that of methods. The Awful Truth and Bringing Up Baby represent opposite approaches to the same end—the classic screwball comedy dilemma of showing how two people who initially appear unsuited to each other discover that this is not the case at all. The Awful Truth exhibits all the Apollonian virtues. It is controlled, balanced, ordered, and temperate. In contrast Bringing Up Baby exhibits all the characteristics of the Dionysian sensibility. It is spontaneous, chaotic, and anarchic, intoxicated with the passion and excess of its own exuberant absurdism. Each is the perfect exemplar, the ideal representation, of its chosen approach. The Awful Truth and Bringing Up Baby—for me these are the twin stars around which the galaxy of screwball comedy orbits.

Apples or oranges? I'll have one of each, please.

__________________________

Bringing Up Baby is shown regularly on Turner Classic Movies. The next showing is on Wednesday, October 15, at 5:00 p.m. (PDT).

The Definitive Screwball Comedy

A few weeks ago I wrote about the classic American screwball comedy ("An Unsuitable Attachment: The Classic American Screwball Comedy," July 14, 2008). In that blog I described the typical dilemma of the genre: a character must choose between two possible romantic interests who represent on the one hand safety and conformity and on the other hand risk and idiosyncrasy. In 1937, only three years after the original screwball comedy, It Happened One Night, was released, a movie came along that for me represents the apogee of the genre, The Awful Truth, starring Cary Grant and Irene Dunne and directed by Leo McCarey.

At the beginning of the movie the two main characters, Jerry (Cary Grant) and Lucy (Irene Dunne), the type of urban sophisticates who routinely populated the screwball comedies of the 1930's, are already married. Jerry, just returned from a trip to Florida, finds that in his absence Lucy has been enjoying herself with their friends and immediately notices that she seems to be receiving a great deal of attention—and returning it—from a suave Continental bachelor who has "gigolo" written all over him. His jealousy aroused, Jerry refuses to believe Lucy's protests that that her actions have been entirely innocuous. As the squabble between the two escalates, Lucy, dismayed and frustrated with her husband's lack of trust in her, files for divorce and the two separate.

In typical screwball fashion, each soon becomes attached to someone else. Lucy becomes engaged to a new neighbor, a rich oilman (and mother-dominated hick) from Oklahoma. This character, played by Ralph Bellamy, is in every way the opposite of Jerry—slow-witted, unsophisticated, and unimaginative. Jerry is at first desperate to win Lucy back before the divorce decree becomes final and does everything he can think of to sabotage her engagement, including becoming attached to an embarrassingly tawdry nightclub performer named Dixie Belle Lee in an effort to make Lucy jealous.

When all his efforts fail, he gives up and becomes engaged to a dull and conventional heiress. It is just at this point that Lucy finally realizes that she still loves Jerry and that her oilman is all wrong for her. She breaks off her engagement and lays plans to get Jerry back. Her scheme succeeds with hilarious results and the two are reunited just before their divorce decree becomes final.

What makes The Awful Truth the definitive screwball comedy is not just its archetypal plot, which the brief synopsis above hardly does justice to. What really makes it special is its perfect confluence of star power, inspired direction, and tremendously entertaining situations.

It is in this movie that the Cary Grant persona as moviegoers came to experience it over the next three decades emerged fully formed. Cary Grant had been working in movies for five years before making The Awful Truth, which was his thirtieth film credit. Yet seeing him in movies like Sylvia Scarlett (1936) or the two Mae West classics She Done Him Wrong or I'm No Angel (both 1933), one might find it hard to believe that this is the same actor. In The Awful Truth he is relaxed, urbane, slyly witty, subtly funny, slightly disreputable, everything that one associates with the screen personality "Cary Grant." The screen persona of the comic Cary Grant was born in this movie and continued with little alteration until he retired in the mid-1960's.

Like Grant, Irene Dunne was an experienced movie performer when she made The Awful Truth, but unlike Grant she was already a major star and two-time Academy Award nominee. She had appeared in just about every kind of Hollywood movie, from Westerns to musicals and especially ultrasentimental tearjerkers. She had a lovely soprano singing voice and an affinity for the songs of Jerome Kern, playing Magnolia in the 1936 version of Show Boat. Yet she had her first major comedy role, in Theodora Goes Wild, just the year before.

In The Awful Truth she shows a real affinity for both sophisticated and physical comedy, and it's hard to imagine an actress who would have been so perfect as Lucy. At key moments she gives what I think of as the Irene Dunne reaction, a slightly vacant expression of wry surprise and disbelief that in its way is as distinctive as Grant's familiar recoiling, wide-eyed double-take. Her ability to balance, and sometimes to project simultaneously, conflicting emotions made her one of the most versatile and talented actresses of the studio era. Her seriousness in this movie is tempered with lightheartedness, and her whimsicality with restraint. Like Grant, her frustration is comic, and her comic behavior is a response to emotional turmoil. The interaction of these two actors makes it clear to the viewer that the characters they play are ideally suited to each other and that their notions of incompatibility are complete nonsense.

Those familiar with the later work of director Leo McCarey, swamped in heavy-handed sentimentality and a curiously outdated sensibility, might find it difficult to believe that he was responsible for The Awful Truth. In fact, McCarey had previously worked with many notable Hollywood comics, including Laurel and Hardy, W. C. Fields, Mae West, and Harold Lloyd. He was responsible for two of the funniest movies ever made, the Marx Brothers' zany Duck Soup (1933) and the delightful Ruggles of Red Gap (1935). The Awful Truth is masterfully directed, with a sure command of controlled comic invention and a light touch throughout. It is packed with clever sight gags and moments of restrained physical comedy that stop just short of farce. And as in the best movie comedies, these humorous bits always seem to grow from the plot and never to be arbitrarily imposed on it. For The Awful Truth McCarey won an Oscar as Best Director, an award that was well deserved.

Three sequences in the movie are especially memorable. Early on, Jerry and Lucy go to court to see who will get custody of their dog, Mr. Smith, played by the same fox terrier that played Asta in the Thin Man series. The judge decides that he will let the dog make the choice, and both Jerry and Lucy begin frantically calling him to come to them. But Lucy has a trick up her sleeve (or in this case up the muff she has carried into court): Mr. Smith's new toy, a ball shaped like a bulldog's head, which, without letting either Jerry or the judge see, she uses to get the dog to run to her. Mr. Smith is really Jerry's dog, so why is she so determined to get custody of him? Is she just being competitive, or is she unconsciously seeking a way to keep Jerry connected to her (he is awarded visiting rights)? Either way it's a very funny sequence, directed and performed with precision timing.

Later in the movie, Lucy hits upon a clever ruse to break up Jerry's engagement. She turns up at the swanky party Jerry's snobbish fiancée and future in-laws are giving on the very night that the divorce decree is to become final. Pretending to be Jerry's fictitious sister, Lola, she appears as a garishly dressed, bubble-headed lush, a professional singer clearly based on Dixie Belle. She pretends to get drunk and insists on performing the tasteless and risqué musical number she saw Dixie Belle do in the nightclub, correctly predicting that the humiliated Jerry will rush her out of the party and drive her home. To see the refined Lucy as performed by the refined Dunne cut loose like this, a departure into controlled slapstick so out of character for Lucy, is the high point of the movie. And to know that Lucy's gauche behavior is all a pretense just makes the whole episode all the more funny.

But Lucy's plot is not yet over. She contrives to have Jerry drive her to her aunt's country cabin instead of to her own apartment and further contrives for the car to break down so that they will be forced to spend their last night together as husband and wife in the remote cabin. What ensues is another bout of hilariously restrained slapstick that involves adjoining bedrooms, a connecting door that refuses to stay shut, and a mechanical clock with male and female figures (actually Grant and Dunne in Alpine costumes on a huge mock-up of the clock) emerging from and returning to separate doors as the clock ticks away to midnight, when the divorce decree becomes final.

Will Jerry give in to temptation and sleep in Lucy's room, which will invalidate the divorce decree? Will she let him? Of course, but not until they have negotiated a truce. The suspicion and jealousy that wrecked their relationship will be banished; their renewed marriage will be based on the principle of mutual trust. Theirs will be a modern marriage in the style of Nick and Nora Charles, one of partnership combined with independence. Just as the mechanical clock strikes midnight the two figures emerge from their separate compartments, but this time they both return to hers, an ingenious sight gag concocted by McCarey not only to skirt Production Code issues but to indicate visually the reconciliation of Jerry and Lucy.

___________________________

The Awful Truth plays on Turner Classic Movies on Saturday, September 6 at 7 a.m. (PDT).

A Distinctively Bitter Screwball Comedy

"[Howard] Hawks has stamped his distinctively bitter view of life on adventure, gangster and private-eye melodramas, Westerns, musicals, and screwball comedies . . ."

— Andrew Sarris, The American Cinema

After watching Howard Hawks's classic screwball comedy His Girl Friday‚ a movie that I regard highly, with a friend recently, I asked him what he thought of it. He admitted that it was a very funny movie but then confessed that in the end he didn't really like it very much. When I asked him why not, he replied, "Because there weren't any nice people in it." His comment made me realize that the cynical view of human nature pervading Hawks's movies, even his comedies, is an element that I have come to take for granted. It no longer strikes me as incongruous even in a Hawks comedy because it is what I expect of any Hawks film.

In His Girl Friday, based on the play The Front Page by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, Cary Grant plays Walter Johnson, the editor of a New York newspaper. Rosalind Russell plays Hildy Johnson, his ex-wife and star reporter. The play was filmed once before by Lewis Milestone in 1931 under its original title, with Adolphe Menjou and Pat O'Brien playing Walter Burns and Hildy Johnson. Hawks's major innovation was to update the source material to the then-fashionable screwball genre by making Hildy a female character and also Walter's ex-wife.

In the very first scene Hildy walks briskly through the crowded, bustling city room and into Walter's office to announce not only her resignation from the newspaper but her engagement to Bruce Baldwin (Ralph Bellamy), an insurance agent from Albany. In typical Hawks fashion, this walk to Walter's office—with its swift pace, lengthy tracking shots as the camera follows Hildy's progress through the city room, abundant visual detail, and non-stop banter between Hildy and the other reporters—sets the tone for the whole movie. The entire sequence is one of continuous movement and sarcastic, rapid-fire dialogue.

As soon as Hildy announces her intention to resign and remarry, Walter immediately begins a campaign to thwart her in both of these intentions. His strategy is to convince her through flattery and chicanery that she is the only person who can possibly cover the story of convicted murderer Earl Williams, scheduled to be executed the next morning unless a last-minute reprieve from the governor comes through. What follows is in many ways an archetypal screwball comedy. Baldwin is a likeable but vapid dunce, and Hildy is clearly making a mistake in her plans to leave behind the excitement of her career and unstable life with Walter for the comfortable, unchallenging boredom of a conventional marriage, "with a house and children," to Baldwin. What really distinguishes His Girl Friday from other screwball comedies of the time, though, is precisely what disturbed my friend about the movie: the cynicism in which Hawks steeps the characters and their behavior.

Hawks's bitter view of humanity—his deep conviction that all human action is essentially motivated by self-interest—is projected onto nearly every character in His Girl Friday. In no character is this more apparent than in Cary Grant's Walter Johnson. His dirty tricks campaign to sabotage Hildy's engagement is relentless. So single-minded is he in pursuing his goal that his actions are wholly unrestrained by what would normally be considered human feeling.

The hapless Bruce Baldwin is the repeated victim of Walter's machinations. Walter intentionally humiliates Baldwin the first time he meets him by marching up to an elderly and unattractive man and pretending to mistake him for Baldwin. The mild-mannered Baldwin meekly sits in the background, unable to get a word in edgewise because of Walter's non-stop effusion in introducing himself to the man he has pretended to mistake for Hildy's fiance. When Hildy, who seems not at all surprised by Walter's self-centered sense of humor, arrives and sorts out the situation, Walter responds with mock apology, and the credulous Baldwin innocently assumes there has been a true case of mistaken identity, never for a moment suspecting Walter's manipulative ruse.

Walter continues to torment Baldwin at every turn (even causing him unjustly to land in jail), and Baldwin continues to believe that the string of merciless humiliations is unintentional. That Hawks manages to obscure the innate unkindness of Walter's repeated victimization of Baldwin by making it seem very, very funny is a testament to Hawks's skill at wresting humor from the most unpromising premise, that even cruelty can be played for laughs.

Even the initially sympathetic Hildy eventually shows her true nature when, as Walter intended, she is hooked by the irresistible lure of the story she has committed herself to write. (She has agreed to do this for purely mercenary reasons, to earn $5,000 so that she and Baldwin can buy a house and not be forced to live with his mother.) She is simply too thoroughly a professional reporter to overcome her natural instinct to pursue to the end, and if necessary embellish, a potential story. In the press room at the prison, she easily holds her own with the other reporters, all male, all aggressively pursuing the same story. But it is when she is finally allowed to conduct an interview with the condemned killer that Hawks fully reveals his cynic's conception of her exploitative personality.

The condemned killer, like Bruce Baldwin another soft-spoken naif, has no clear conception of why he actually shot his victim; the murder seems to have been more the result of an accident than an intentional act. Yet Hildy, in her "interview" with the laconic killer, cleverly manages to create a story where there is none. This she does by putting words in the befuddled and suggestible man's mouth until she has created a scenario that not only appears to explain his actions but also in large measure exculpates him by making him seem to have been temporarily insane at the time.

The minor characters in the movie also get their share of Hawks's bile. The reporters in the press room are portrayed as vultures. They are, after all, essentially participating in an all-night death watch with the remote possibility that a last-minute reprieve from the governor will arrive before Williams hangs. Either way, they will get their story, and that is all these ultra-competitive scoundrels care about. When Williams's lady friend of one night, another pathetic and lonely individual, arrives and then dramatically throws herself from the window, the reporters all race to the window and stare into the courtyard below, waiting for the ambulance to arrive. "She's dead," one calmly says. "No she ain't. She's movin'," another impassively adds. Then they all race back to the telephones to call in the story.

But Hawks reserves his most vitriolic judgments for the elected officials in the movie, the sheriff and the city mayor, two characters of such unredeemed ambition, greed, and corruption that they make the politicians, lawyers, and bankers in the typical Frank Capra movie seem almost innocuous in comparison. When a messenger from the governor does indeed arrive with a reprieve, the mayor, desperately needing to be perceived as a law-and-order crime fighter before facing an election the next week, bribes the messenger and persuades him to take the retrieve back and pretend he arrived too late to prevent the hanging. The sheriff, his crony, abets him in this scheme.

In the end, after many more complications, Williams is saved from execution and declared to have been temporarily insane at the time of the shooting, and the corrupt sheriff and mayor are exposed. Baldwin returns to Albany without Hildy, and Hildy returns to both Walter and the newspaper. Despite, and in some measure because of, the fallibility of human nature, order has been restored and justice has prevailed—at least for a little while, for in Hawks's world human nature may be constant, but everything else is in perpetual motion.

_________________________

Trivia notes: It is widely known that although Cary Grant, who had worked with Hawks before, was cast early as Walter Johnson, virtually every major comic actress in Hollywood turned down the role of Hildy (including, according to notstarring.com, Jean Arthur, Claudette Colbert, Irene Dunne, Carole Lombard, and Ginger Rogers) before the part was offered to Rosalind Russell. I have also read that after viewing the first dailies, Hawks and his stars all realized that something wasn't working. At a loss to identify what was wrong, Hawks suggested that the actors speed up the dialogue, firing it off at about half again the speed they had been using. After seeing the results, all agreed that the elusive problem was fixed.