Gene Kelly: the prettiest shortstop in baseball.

Take Me Out to the Ball Game (1949) is one of several films to feature Gene Kelly partnered with Frank Sinatra. I am a huge fan of both performers, so I love these movies. On the Town (1949) and Anchors Aweigh (1945) are on my list of favorite Gene Kelly films, and the Gene Kelly Blogathon (hosted by the Classic Movie Blog Association) gave me an excuse (in case I needed one) to explore the third in the series. If you’re interested, there is a film collection on DVD.  What’s more, TCM’s Summer Under the Stars is honoring Gene Kelly today in recognition of his one hundredth birthday, and that just fills my heart with glee.

Take Me Out to the Ball Game portrays the adventures of Dennis Ryan (Sinatra) and Eddie O’Brien (Kelly), two baseball players doubling as a vaudeville act. They help lead the Wolves through championship years and provide musical entertainment everywhere they go. In addition to Kelly and Sinatra, this film features Esther Williams (the Million Dollar Mermaid), Betty Garrett, Edward Arnold, and Jules Munshin as the fantastic character Goldberg. Entertaining connections: Betty Garrett also plays Brunhilde Esterhazy (a cab driver who has a thing for Frank Sinatra’s character “Chip”) in On the Town, and played in Neptune’s Daughter with Esther Williams. Betty Garrett gets to spend a lot of time chasing Frank Sinatra. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

Seriously–entertainment EVERYWHERE. I really did like this number, too.

Williams plays K.C. Higgens, who has just inherited ownership of the team and knows more about baseball than they would think and has more opinions than they would like. Too bad she’s beautiful …  Yet again, we watch Gene Kelly teach Frank Sinatra about attracting the opposite sex. Naturally, Higgens and O’Brien end up falling in love and endure a complicated courtship. Ryan falls in love with her, too, but Shirley (Garrett) manages to win his affections in the end, and believe me, she earns it.

As you might expect, Ryan and O’Brien perform the famous “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” (the 1927 version, not the 1908, if you’re astute enough to know the difference. I wasn’t so knowledgeable, but I know a lot about using Google–I looked it up). My other favorite number was “O’Brien to Ryan to Goldberg,” depicting their famous double-play strategy that’s the key to their victories. The number is catchy and  entertaining, even if you are a blasphemer, like myself, who doesn’t particularly care for baseball. It’s all about the rhythm, and I tend to love Gene Kelly’s trio numbers, anyway (“Good Morning,” anyone?). They may not all be as famous as his other routines, but I enjoy them quite well.

O’Brien to Ryan to Goldberg! The triangle that trumps the diamond!

Interestingly, several songs were deleted from the film: one of Frank Sinatra crooning to Shirley (which makes me kind of sad, but it was deemed “too slow”) and “Baby Doll,” which features a bizarre dance number between Kelly and Williams that could easily have inspired the toy routine in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) and is just plain weird in this film. Removing Sinatra crooning is just wrong, but they did spare us the somewhat awkward (in the context of the film) number that did no justice to the dancing talent. For this reason, I give the editing 3.5 stars.

Despite re-running many elements amongst each other, I love the films in this series. Each one is its own delight. Overall, I have to say I prefer the sailor films to baseball, but this is one is still a lot of fun. We get the pleasure of the singing Sinatra and dancing Gene Kelly, which is what matters most. Gene Kelly performs with his usual charm and enthusiasm. He plays a character that would be obnoxious, except that he’s Gene Kelly. He often plays these characters, and I cannot help but love them. It doesn’t seem to matter if the musical numbers are excellent (think Singin’ in the Rain) or maybe longer than they needed to be (this film did have some of those, I’m sorry to say)–watching him dance makes you want to join him. If you could keep up. Which I can’t. It’s pure joy onscreen every time.

No matter what he’s doing, you just know it’s Gene Kelly. I have strolled through a room, glanced at the television, and known that it was a Gene Kelly piece–even without knowing the film. He brings all of his “Kelly-ness” to everything. You have to appreciate that sort of thing.

This film is a winner when you want something light and frivolous. It’s a good choice for a Memorial Day or Fourth of July film that’s a little different, since it is baseball after all, and it does have some patriotic undertones and a patriotic number. Perhaps it’s cliche, but I think I would definitely recommend this one with a hot dog, chased by peanuts and Cracker Jacks.

 

This post has a double function: as a contribution to the Gene Kelly Centennial Blogathon hosted by the Classic Movie Blog Association, and as another entry in the 2012 TCM SUTS blogathon hosted by Sittin’ on a Backyard Fence and ScribeHard on Film. Share the Gene Kelly love with everyone you know today!

Falling in love with Gene Kelly is just so hard to do (… not).

Joe: “We’re trying to tell a story with music, and song, and dance. Well, not just with words. For instance, if the boy tells the girl that he loves her, he just doesn’t say it, he sings it.”
Jane: “Why doesn’t he just say it?”
Joe: “Why? Oh, I don’t know, but it’s kind of nice.”

Jane Falbury (Judy Garland), part of a long and proud lineage of Falbury farmers, struggles to make ends meet: the farm is not doing as well as in years past, and her farmhands have decided to leave for better-paying jobs. One day, her aspiring actress sister, Abigail (Gloria De Haven) comes home with a full theater troupe in tow. Abigail has promised her beau, Joe Ross (Gene Kelly), the director of the group, that they could use the barn to rehearse and stage their new musical production. Despite Jane’s better judgment–and the objections of her housekeeper, Esme (Marjorie Main), her longtime fiance Orville (Eddie Bracken), and his overbearing father (Ray Collins)–she allows them to stay, provided the members of the troupe help out around the farm.

In the wake of a disastrous barn dance overrun by the theater troupe–and after Joe’s buddy, bumbling Herb Blake (Phil Silvers), inadvertently destroys Jane’s new tractor–she decides to order the group away. But Jane is touched when the actors pool their meager funds and Joe sells his station wagon to buy her a new tractor. She again agrees to let them stay, and gradually finds herself falling in love with Joe, even though he has an understanding with Abigail, and she remains reluctantly engaged to Orville. But when Abigail develops a diva-like attitude and runs off to Broadway with the musical’s star (Hans Conried), Jane is thrust into the starring role opposite Joe, and the two of them can no longer deny their feelings as the show goes on …

Summer Stock (1950) was a notoriously difficult and troubled production, but as a product of the MGM musical dream factory, naturally none of this turmoil showed onscreen. As filming commenced, Judy Garland had just left rehab (which she had entered in an effort to quell her drug addiction), and was still considered something of a risk–with good reason, as her erratic behavior and habitual lateness had previously cost her roles in films such as The Barkleys of Broadway (1949) and Annie Get Your Gun (1950). The shoot eventually ran overlong (a total of six months). The movie marked her final film for longtime home studio MGM; she was fired from Royal Wedding (1951) later that year, terminating her contract.

In completing Summer Stock, Garland was fortunate to have the support of her friends, including studio head Louis B. Mayer (who kept her in the role despite the troubles she presented) and her male lead, Gene Kelly. The film marks the third and final onscreen pairing for Garland and Kelly; the two first appeared together in Kelly’s screen debut, 1942′s For Me and My Gal, and then co-starred in The Pirate six years later. By most accounts, Garland and Kelly got on well; according to Garland biographer John Fricke, Kelly (who remained grateful for the help seasoned film actress Garland gave him on the set of Gal) agreed to do the film primarily as a favor to the actress, and in the process brought his own touch to the production. Though Nick Castle was credited as the dance director for the film, some of the best numbers from the film (notably “You, Wonderful You” and its reprises) were very obviously choreographed by Kelly.

You, Wonderful You” is the cornerstone musical piece of the film, marking the evolution of the love story between Jane and Joe. Its initial appearance in the film occurs as Jane first begins to open up to Joe, and its staging is quite similar to “You Were Meant for Me” in Singin’ in the Rain (1952)–the two characters on an empty stage, lit by soft spotlights as the male lead sings of his love, before segueing into a delicate pas de deux. It’s lovemaking, set to music–beautiful, heartfelt, emotional–and Kelly’s relatively soft, romantic performance here is nothing short of mesmerizing (let’s face facts: the man’s a veritable dreamboat).

Kelly revisits “You, Wonderful You” (sans lyrics) in the famous “newspaper number,” a dance that demonstrates the full depths of the actor’s charm. Accompanied at first only by the squeak of a floorboard, the scratch of a newspaper on the floor, his own tapping shoes, and an intermittent whistling reprise of the tune, Kelly constructs an intricate solo ballet.

Initially, he makes his own music through the motions of his body and the instrumentation of his props, but as Kelly gives himself full over to the sheer joy of movement, the orchestra creeps in, rising into a crescendo of sound that mimics the increasingly frenetic pacing of the dance. This number perfectly captures Kelly’s innate understanding of the importance of lighting and staging in conveying the meaning of the dance to the audience; when Kelly jumps atop a stack of boxes and dances alongside his shadow cast on the nearby wall, the lovely contrast between light and dark, man and shadow, reflects Kelly’s inner turmoil over his growing feelings for Jane (in this way, it could be said that Kelly’s dance with the newspaper is at least somewhat reminiscent of his dance with his own reflection in 1944′s Cover Girl).

The other memorable number from Summer Stock (one which was not designed by either Kelly or Castle, but instead by the film’s director, Charles Walters), “Get Happy,” had been added to the film three months after shooting was completed, as a showpiece for a magically slimmed-down Garland. And yes, though it’s been harped on repeatedly over the years, one must admit that the actress’ appearance in this scene is a little jarring, considering she was noticeably heavier in her previous (and subsequent) scenes. Still, Garland’s performance in “Get Happy” has become legendary in its own right, and marks one of the best musical numbers of her career (which is saying something, considering how many iconic moments she has given us).

Admittedly, Summer Stock is largely a Judy Garland vehicle–it was designed that way, after all, as a kind of comeback after a couple of trying years for the actress. But Kelly’s contributions are equally important–if not more so–to the film’s success. Had Garland’s original intended co-star in the film, Mickey Rooney, played the part of Joe, we might not now remember this movie as one of the great classic musicals. It took the extra-special touch of Gene Kelly’s brilliant, bold choreography (not to mention his delightfully cheeky grin and … other endowments) and that sparkling chemistry with Garland to make Summer Stock the wholly entertaining film that it remains to this day.

 

This post is an entry in the Gene Kelly Centennial Blogathon, hosted by the Classic Movie Blog Association. Visit the CMBA site for a full list of participants.

Living the American dream with Mr. Blandings.

“It’s a conspiracy, I tell you. The minute you start, they put you on the all-American sucker list. You start out to build a home and wind up in the poorhouse. And if it can happen to me, what about the guys who aren’t making $15,000 a year? The ones who want a home of their own. It’s a conspiracy, I tell you–against every boy and girl who were ever in love.”

In the wake of World War II, the great migration from cities to suburbs began in earnest as weary urban dwellers sought to escape the rigors of overcrowding and increasing rent in favor of owning their own homes. Mortgages were affordable and relatively easy to obtain–particularly for veterans–and in the decade following the war, the rate of home ownership in the United States increased by more than twenty percent. More than ever, owning a home was considered an integral part of the American dream, and it was the goal of many an American middle-class household.

Of course, the dream and the reality are often in stark contrast to one another, and many new homeowners were unprepared for the issues–monetary, physical, psychological–associated with holding full responsibility for one’s domicile. This quickly-dashed idealism is the center of Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), which not only gives us a comedic look at the problems associated with building one’s own “nest,” but also gently satirizes the supposed idylls of home ownership.

Cary Grant stars as the titular Mr. Jim Blandings, an advertising man who lives with his wife, Muriel (Myrna Loy) and their two daughters, Betsy (Connie Marshall) and Joan (Sharyn Moffett) in a tiny New York apartment. Tired of living in such cramped quarters (and discovering that his wife has been talking to an expensive interior designer on the sly), Jim decides–almost on a whim–to move the family to the country (i.e. Connecticut). Jim and Muriel get suckered into buying a dilapidated old farm house for more than its worth, only to later be informed by their friend and lawyer, Bill Cole (Melvyn Douglas), that they have been bamboozled. But the Blandings have fallen in love with the idea of the place and proceed with the deal, against any and all advice.

As it turns out, the house is unsound and must be demolished and rebuilt from the ground up. The Blandings hire Henry Sims (Reginald Denny), an architect, to design a new home, and construction proceeds. But there are problems from the get-go, from incompetent workmen to issues with the land–not to mention the ever-increasing costs of the project. Compounded with problems at work and his growing jealousy over the “relationship” between his wife and his best friend, Jim finds his life quickly spiraling out of control. Can he survive the building of his dream home with his family, job, and sanity intact?

The opening scenes of the film–laid over Douglas’ wry narration–underscore the central conflict of the film between the bustling city and the calmer country. Bill Cole’s voice-over describes the city in flattering, incongruous terms (a crowded lunch counter becomes a “quaint little sidewalk cafe”) that humorously set up the difference between the current locale and the more rural one to come. For its part, Manhattan is a claustrophobic wonderland, overflowing with millions of people, pushing, shoving, struggling just to move through the streets. That conflict is recreated in miniature inside the cramped Blandings apartment: Jim’s search through the minuscule bedroom closet for his robe; fighting with his daughters for access to the bathroom; maneuvering around Muriel to catch a glimpse of himself in the mirror while shaving (or resignedly wiping the steam from the mirror while she showers); inching around close-set tables and furniture in a long-established, intricate ballet of restricted movement.

And yet the solution to these problems–the spacious countryside, the big house with two closets and a bathroom for every member of the family (aren’t they living in a dream world?)–is not quite the idyllic conclusion the Blandings expected. The people in the supposedly more “civilized” country are potentially just as crooked as their city-folk counterparts (the shady real estate agent being a prime example), and the problems of overcrowding are replaced by the mounting expenses and inconveniences of living so far outside of the city. Though the movie ultimately finds its happy ending, with the Blandings comfortably ensconced in their new “dream home,” the costs of getting there, it seems, are discouraging and troublesome.

Grant and Loy starred in three films together, and Mr. Blandings marks the last of these. In many ways, it is also their best. As a domestic couple, they are a charming pair, beautiful, witty, and appealing. Grant is such a “dad”–he wanders around the apartment, seemingly in every female’s way, weighing himself on the bathroom scale with a rueful pat of his (nonexistent) gut and singing off-key in the shower. He’s not even able to enjoy bathroom time to himself in the morning without Muriel coming in. Still, Jim–at least initially–is unfazed by the seeming disorder and chaos that mark his domestic life; he simply sighs and squeezes the tube of toothpaste back into proper form without a word, like any beleaguered father (his performance, especially in the opening scenes, bring a myriad of hapless paternal figures from any number of sitcoms to mind).

While Grant’s befuddled and increasingly frustrated Jim is undeniably the centerpiece of the film, Loy more than matches him quip for quip. Muriel is determined to have the house of her dreams, and spends most of her time concerned about the color schemes and decorative elements of the house than her husband’s growing irritation at the ever-ballooning budget, leading to priceless exchanges like this one:

Muriel: “I refuse to endanger the lives of my children in a house with less than four bathrooms.”
Jim: “For thirteen hundred dollars, they can live in a house with three bathrooms and rough it.”

Loy doesn’t look old enough to have teenage daughters in this film, even though in reality she was forty-three when it was released. The  movie came in the wake of a four-year break from Hollywood that Loy had taken during the war, when she allied herself with the Red Cross and undertook several tours to sell war bonds and raise money for the military effort. When she finally returned to the screen, she found perhaps her greatest role starring opposite Fredric March in the phenomenal post-war drama The Best Years of Our Lives (1946). The subsequent years had found her as successful as ever, with the release of the final Thin Man movie, Song of the Thin Man (1947), and her second pairing with Grant, as Shirley Temple’s older sister in The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947), both cleaning up at the box office. The late 40s marked the peak of her career, however, as she took on fewer film roles in the following decades.

A warm and genuinely funny comedy marked by excellent performances from its lead trio (not to mention great supporting turns from Denny and Louise Beavers as the family maid, Gussie), Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House is simply a must-see.

 

This post is an entry in the “2012 TCM SUTS Blogathon” hosted by Sittin’ on a Backyard Fence and ScribeHard on Film. Make sure to check out all of the Myrna Loy-centric entries from today, and more stars throughout the month!

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House airs at 6PM EST today on TCM.

Feminist Fridays: Madonnas and whores on the China Seas.

Of the six films in which Jean Harlow and Clark Gable appeared together, China Seas is one of the pair’s better outings. By this time in her life, at the tender age of 24, Harlow had come into her own as an actress, demonstrating the combination of sharp-edged femininity and self-assurance that marked the final roles of her too-short career. For his part, Gable was coming off an Oscar win for Best Actor (for the previous year’s It Happened One Night), and the award had brought Gable immense popularity as well as more power at his home studio, MGM. The pair had previously made three films together–1931′s The Secret Six, 1932′s Red Dust, and 1933′s Hold Your Man–and had developed an easy rapport both on and off the screen. By the time China Seas began filming in 1935, they were old pros at playing combative lovers.

China Seas puts bickering former paramours Gable and Harlow in the middle of a love triangle on the other side of the world. Alan Gaskell (Gable) is captain of a ship traveling from Hong Kong to Shanghai with troubles aplenty on board. He has a store of gold below decks; a ferocious storm on the horizon; a former lover, Dolly “China Doll” Portland (Harlow), in his cabin; an English widow and former objet d’amour, Sybil Barclay (Rosalind Russell), among his passengers; and, unbeknownst to Gaskell, a duplicitous old friend, Jamesy McArdle (Wallace Beery), who is plotting to steal the gold. When Gaskell renews his relationship with Sybil and decides to marry her and return to England, China Doll jealously aligns herself with Jamesy, assisting in his plot by stealing the key to the ship’s arsenal so his pirate cohorts can arm themselves and take the ship. With the help of his crew, Gaskell is able to turn the tables on Jamesy and comes to realize that his adventurous and dangerous life on the seas is exactly where he belongs.

The film presents two very different women. Harlow’s character, China Doll, is pure vamp, oozing sex with every step and sideways glance. When Gaskell discover her in his bathroom and asks what she’s doing aboard his ship, she blithely replies, “Nothing alarming. Just showering dewdrops off the body beautiful.” That she thinks nothing of stripping down and jumping in Gaskell’s shower indicates the scope of their relationship–they were previously lovers, and judging by Gaskell’s anger at her unexpected appearance, he has attempted (and obviously failed) to cut her loose. China Doll calls herself “the gal that drives men mad,” and it’s true: from Gaskell to Jamesy (who later claims that loving China Doll was “the only decent thing I ever did in my life, and even that was a mistake”), she leaves a series of frustrated male libidos in her wake.

On the other hand, China Doll’s polar opposite, Russell’s high-class Sybil Barclay, is refinement personified. She views China Doll, a woman of poor breeding and “ill repute,” as nothing short of vulgar, and Sybil manages to convey her utter disdain of the woman while maintaining the regal bearing of the aristocrat. Still, Sybil’s measured personality does not prevent her from making incisive observations about her romantic rival when pushed too far by China Doll’s barely-concealed contempt. During an ill-fated dinner one evening, as China Doll becomes increasingly drunk and belligerent, Sybil finally defines (and implicitly judges) the motivation behind the woman’s uncouth behavior: “You must be very fond of him, to humiliate yourself like this.” It’s interesting to note the difference between the women as exemplified by this scene. While China Doll lets her emotions get away from her and spirals into self-destructiveness, Sybil contains her feelings behind a veneer of civility–it’s passion versus propriety, lust versus genteel sentiment.

In this way, the movie sets up the archetypal (and stereotypical) Madonna-whore complex, with each woman respectively being shunted into the role of “good girl” and “wicked woman.” In his interactions with China Doll, Gaskell is rough and animalistic, exuding wild, untamed lust; she responds in kind, seemingly welcoming the captain’s brutality, at least until it turns to outright rejection. Gaskell’s relationship with Sybil, by contrast, is almost entirely devoid of eroticism; the well-bred Englishwoman is a figure of virtue, one Gaskell intends to marry instead of ravish, and thus is not subject to the same unbridled passion that he shares (however unwillingly) with China Doll.

Gable’s relationship with these two women is like some kind of weird, wonderful Freudian wet dream. He spends the entire film torn between his feelings for each woman, each of whom represents a particular facet of his own personality. China Doll is indicative of the freedom he desires (and has found in the sea): as a woman of “loose morals” (so to speak), she does not require commitment to be enjoyed for what she can offer. As Gaskell tells her, “Now wait a minute, Dolly! You and I are friends. We’ve had a lot of fun together, and, as far as I’m concerned, you’re number-one girl in the archipelago, but I don’t remember making any vows to you, nor do I recall your taking any.” In the same breath, he both belittles her (by pointing out her “popularity” among the men of the area) and indicates approval of their no-strings-attached “friendship.”

Sybil, on the other hand, represents a level of respectability that Gaskell craves–a return to “normalcy” away from pirates and stormy weather and the daily risks of captaining a crew in such a dangerous part of the world. Their connection goes deep into their shared past, as they had loved one another years ago, but had forsaken those feelings out of respect for Sybil’s husband (who dies before the movie begins). Had Gaskell remained in England and forged a life that was not fraught with strife and danger, then settling down with a now-free Sybil would have been the logical choice. In the end, though, Gaskell lets her go, forgoing the promise of civilization in favor of a woman who is much like himself–a rebel bucking the norm.

Harlow and Gable are an indelible film pair–it’s hard to think about a Harlow film without Gable coming to mind. That shouldn’t be too surprising, all things considered–of the almost two dozen feature-length movies for which Harlow received on-screen credit, Gable ultimately co-starred in 25% of them. Gable and Harlow would go on to make two more films together after China SeasWife vs. Secretary in 1936, and Saratoga a year later. The latter film was Harlow’s final project before her untimely death, and was eventually completed using a stand-in and a voice double. That Saratoga was completed at all is a testament to both the actress’ popularity and the potency of the Gable-Harlow pairing–in the end, no one could resist the idea of seeing these two brilliant and beautiful actors play off one another just one more time.

“You’re dealing with your wife. You can forget the Constitution.”

It’s been delayed by a couple of weeks (apologies—it’s been a busy month!), but today we’re going to take a look at the final Doris Day-Rock Hudson pairing, 1964’s Send Me No Flowers.

In their third outing together, Day and Hudson are no longer sparring singletons, but a loving husband-and-wife duo, living out the mid-century American dream in the suburbs. George Kimball is a hypochondriac who insists that he suffers daily from various aches, pains, and undiagnosed illnesses, while Judy is his overly tolerant wife who secretly replaces her husband’s sleeping pills with sugar placebos. When George goes to doctor (and family friend) Ralph complaining of chest pains, Ralph tells George it’s nothing more than a case of indigestion. But when George catches the tail-end of a telephone conversation about another patient who is dying of a heart ailment, he believes he is the one slated for a visit from the Grim Reaper in only a few weeks’ time. With the help of best friend and neighbor Arnold (Tony Randall), George sets about trying to find a husband for Judy so that she will have someone to “take care of her” when he is gone.

The usual misunderstandings abound as Judy’s college boyfriend, Bert (Clint Walker), arrives in town and George begins to try to set up his wife with a ready-made second husband. Add in Judy’s growing suspicions that George is trying to cover up an affair with a recently-separated neighbor, and you have a series of screwball antics that nonetheless culminate in the prototypical happy ending.

I have to admit–this film is my least favorite of the Day-Hudson vehicles. The “war of the sexes” motif that makes their first two films so engaging is sorely lacking here. Even when their marriage dissolves into chaos, George and Judy are still not as fiery in battle as were Pillow Talk’s Jan and Brad or Lover Come Back’s Carol and Jerry—their conflict is tamer, somehow, lacking the sexual tension that served as the backbone for the film’s predecessors.

Indeed, throughout the movie, the sexuality is dampened—after all, the relationships between men and women are no longer fraught with passion when the battle is over and the war has been won … at least, that’s what films like this would have us believe. Still, there are hints of it in some scenes, but it’s used almost exclusively for comic effect; there are no flaming moments of sexual heat as in the “Possess Me” interlude in Pillow or the seaside kiss in Lover.

Take, for instance, the scene in which Judy discovers that George is not really dying, leading her to think that he concocted the entire “scheme” to hide his supposed affair. Fuming with suppressed rage, she sneaks into the bedroom where George is sleeping. Changing into a flowing, low-cut nightgown, she sits on the edge of the bed, staring down at her sleeping husband for a brief moment, and then proceeds to slap the ever-loving crap out of him, jerking him awake. As she soothes him out of his “bad dream,” Judy begins to remind him of a particularly amorous moment the two of them had once shared.

All of a sudden–heart ailment or no heart ailment–George is bounding with energy, leaping over the staircase banister and searching frantically through the kitchen for champagne and a couple of glasses. It’s the one moment of unbridled sexuality in the film—the mere promise of a night of good old-fashioned lovemaking has George forgetting his “condition” in a heartbeat—and it ends with a literal “cold shower” as Judy locks him out of the house, hurls the voluminous contents of his medicine cabinet at him from the second-story window, and douses him with the remains of his hot-water bottle.

The scene is reminiscent of a similar scene in Lover Come Back, when Carol tricks Jerry into taking a midnight drive to the beach and, once he’s divested himself of his clothing, peals out and leaves her naked would-be lover stranded. Indeed, there are quite a few moments in this film that will ring familiar to fans of the three films—just as Lover borrowed quite heavily from Pillow, so, too, does Flowers borrow from both of them.

Randall once again plays the second banana to Hudson, and he steals the show with a hilariously drunken turn as George’s confidant and would-be eulogist. The scene in which Arnold tries to read his heartfelt eulogy to a frustrated George, who has just been kicked out of his own home, is one of the best moments in the movie. As George moans and complains and snaps at him, Arnold begins to cross out the more laudatory sections of his speech in retaliation for George’s behavior, all while downing George’s bottle of champagne. The ever-effusive Paul Lynde also lights up the film in his scenes as the overly enthusiastic salesman who sells George a trio of cemetery plots (one for George, one for Judy, and one for Judy’s future second husband) and, ultimately, puts the couple back on the path to reconciliation.

The movie has moments of enjoyable, lighthearted comedy (despite the supposed looming specter of death in George’s personal rearview mirror). But one of the things that has always bothered me about this movie is the blatant sexism underlying George’s quest to find Judy a new mate. George wants to find someone to care for Judy because he thinks she cannot competently live on her own—as evidence, he points to her lack of knowledge about mortgages, her inability to recall how much she spent on ham at the grocer’s, and a mistake in writing out a check to pay a bill. He believes that Judy will “fall apart” when he is gone and be completely unable to provide for herself. And while Judy has moments of seeming ineptitude in the movie (the scene with the out-of-control golf cart, for instance, when she needs to be rescued by a strapping Bert on horseback), she proves herself quite capable of keeping a somewhat steady head in the face of George’s devastating news (her behavior in the latter half of the movie, as she flies off the handle at George regarding her suspicions, notwithstanding). It’s a little bothersome to watch George’s condescending attitude toward his wife throughout the movie, at least from a modern perspective.

Still, while far from the best film in either actor’s repertoire, Send Me No Flowers is not without its charms. The genuine love and respect that Day and Hudson share for one another once again comes through in their performances, and the talented, riotous supporting cast makes this one even more enjoyable.

In preparing for these Hudson-Day posts, I re-watched all three films (yeah, like it’s such an unpleasant task) courtesy of my Doris Day and Rock Hudson Comedy Collection. I purchased this two-disc set soon after its release in 2007, and I can’t tell you how many times these discs have made a run through the DVD player—it has truly been one of the best additions to my personal movie collection. The Comedy Collection unfortunately does not include extras beyond the theatrical trailers for each film, but the transfers are clean, bright, and beautiful, and I highly recommend the set if you don’t already own these films. It generally goes for less than $20 on Amazon (in fact, it’s less than $15 right now!), so make sure to add it to your personal collection today!

“At last, I’ve given the world what it needs … a good 10-cent drunk!”

Two years after debuting a sparkling chemistry in 1959′s Pillow Talk, Doris Day and Rock Hudson re-teamed for another romantic comedy, Lover Come Back. Again, they were joined by Tony Randall and a slew of amusing bit players for an appealing, candy-coated concoction of wit, sex, and broad humor. Over the years, I’ve read several critical reviews of the Day-Hudson filmography that label Lover the best of the lot. While I disagree with that assessment (to me, nothing beats their initial pairing in Talk), the film definitely has some of the same immense charms.

Lover Come Back features Day and Hudson as Carol Templeton and Jerry Webster, advertising executives at rival firms in New York City. While Carol works long hours perfecting pitches to secure clients, Jerry wines, dines, and schmoozes potential clients, pandering to their egos, wallets, and libidos. When Jerry succeeds in snatching yet another client out from under Carol’s nose, she reports him to the Advertising Council for his unethical and untenable behavior. To head off Carol’s attempt to jettison his career, Jerry convinces a showgirl, Rebel Davis (Edie Adams), to vouch for him, promising her a prominent role as the spokesgirl for a new product, VIP. The only problem? VIP hasn’t exactly been invented yet. And as Carol catches wind of the new, hot “account” and grows determined to win it for herself, Jerry plays the role of Linus, VIP’s “inventor,” determined all the while to seduce her and divert her attention from her campaign.

Sound familiar? It should–the plot of Lover Come Back borrows heavily from its predecessor. Again, we have Hudson role-playing in an attempt to fool Day’s busy, devoted career woman. And Randall, as Peter Ramsey, the typically-absent president of Jerry’s advertising firm, again functions as the wealthy best friend figure, miserable despite his good fortune and envious of Jerry’s from-the-bootstraps rise to success. But does the similarity between the two films ultimately detract from one or the another? Happily, the answer to that question is a resounding “no.” Despite the shared themes and character arcs, Lover is just as enjoyable as Pillow Talk, with moments of sheer comic brilliance that are all its own.

Interestingly, the movie does allow for a small change in the perception of Day’s sexuality, which creates a slightly more daring atmosphere (at least, for 1961). In Pillow Talk, Day’s Jan Morrow is the one being pursued by Hudson’s knowing, highly-sexed Brad, only allowing herself to give in after an aggressive campaign on his part. But in Lover, Day’s Carol becomes more the sexual aggressor, at least initially, and it’s fun to watch. “Linus,” as portrayed by Jerry, is an innocent, unsure of how to interact with women and ignorant of the delicate sexual relationship between the sexes. Yes, it is a carefully calculated ploy on Jerry’s part to elicit sympathy (and, by extension, sympathy love-making), and Carol falls for it hook, line, and sinker, taking it upon herself to “school” the brilliant but hapless inventor on the ways of love. She even allows herself to be manipulated into taking “Linus” to a strip club, much to Jerry’s delight (the two actors’ facial expressions as the off-screen stripper throws bits of her costume at Linus/Jerry are utterly priceless, as indicated in the screenshot above).

As in Pillow Talk, the ensemble of supporting characters are a hilarious addition to the film. As Rebel, the gorgeous Adams is particularly effective, especially in her performance in front of the Ad Council, in which she declares Jerry to be beyond reproach as she leans over the table to give each man on the panel a better look at Jerry’s (faux) “good conduct” medal, nestled benignly in her impressive cleavage. Jack Albertson and Charles Watts play a pair of friends who always manage to run across Jerry as he’s wooing yet another pretty girl–their running commentary on Jerry’s remarkable stamina is laugh-out-loud funny. And Ann B. Davis (The Brady Bunch’s Alice) brings her prototypical snark to a small but ultimately pivotal role as Carol’s secretary, Millie, who arranges a (very) last-minute reconciliation for her boss and Jerry at the end of the film.

Part of the enjoyment of the movie comes from its satirical look at American big business in the early 1960s–particularly the advertising game. It’s interesting to compare this film to the current television show Mad Men, which takes a more serious (and perhaps bleaker) look at the field during roughly the same time period. True, the similarities between the two are surface-level at best. Still, there are hints of Jerry in Mad Men’s Don Draper: both are womanizing cads; both are determined to do what it takes to land an account; neither man is overly concerned by questions of ethics or morality. And there are tendrils of Carol Templeton in Men’s Peggy Olson: both are women in a predominantly male-driven field, trying to succeed despite the obstacles in their respective paths.

Filled with witty one-liners, some simply stunning costumes for Day, and several great slapstick moments (of particular note is the scene in which Jerry and Peter go hunting only to inadvertently attract the amorous attentions of a moose), Lover Come Back is nothing less than an enjoyable romp, courtesy of the dynamic duo of Hudson and Day.

“My analyst will never believe this.”

This past weekend marked classic movie star Doris Day’s 87th birthday (at least, according to TCM’s online biography of the star … some sources list various other years as Day’s official date of birth). And what better way to celebrate than to dedicate this week’s posts to a trio of films from the beautiful, charming, and oh-so-funny actress?

To that end, we’re going to take a look at the three movies that gave us one of the cutest cinematic pairings of all time: that of Day and Rock Hudson. These three films–Pillow Talk (1959), Lover Come Back (1961), and Send Me No Flowers (1964)–are genuinely funny romantic comedies, trading on Day’s subtle sexiness and Hudson’s macho appeal in a series of battle-of-the-sexes romps. Add in a series of hilarious supporting turns from Tony Randall, and you have the recipe for pure entertainment … and the basis for pretty much every romantic comedy to follow (I’ll leave you to decide if that is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing, given the current state of romantic comedy…).

While each film has its respective charms, the indisputably best of the lot is the first (which, incidentally, won a very deserved Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay). In Pillow Talk, Day plays Jan Morrow, an interior decorator sharing a telephone party line with songwriter Brad Allen (Hudson). Brad’s constant appropriation of the phone–wherein most of his conversations involve him singing a variation of the same tune to one of his numerous female lovers–irritates Jan to no end, and sight unseen, the pair share a mutual loathing of one another. When Brad’s best friend, the wealthy Jonathan Forbes (Randall), tells Brad about his infatuation with his new designer (Jan), Brad is intrigued and determined to try to snag Jan for himself. The two of them happen to meet at a restaurant one evening, and knowing that Jan hates him, Brad pretends to be a rich rancher from Texas named Rex Stetson, in the process sweeping the unknowing Jan off her feet.

The film is a grown-up mix of sex and charm, and does much to dispel the virginal persona that had plagued Day up until this point in her career. Jan is a modern girl, ready to embrace a sexual relationship with Brad Rex that doesn’t include the exchange of wedding vows … that is, until his deceptions come to light. And the movie has fun playing with the sexually-charged nature of the action, inserting characters and setpieces that reflect the lustier appetites of the film. There’s a fertility goddess, a couch that turns into a bed with the flip of a switch, a randy Harvard man, and the infamous split-screen telephone scenes, including one in which Jan and Brad/Rex talk to one another while in their respective bathtubs.

As their talk turns amorous, each one stretches a leg up onto the wall of the bathroom, their feet “meeting” in the middle. His foot slides down the wall a moment, and hers retreats, as if tickled or startled, then slowly returns and plants itself firmly “against” his as Day purrs, “You’ll find that most people are willing to meet you halfway … if you let them.” And you thought a train pounding through a tunnel wasn’t subtle.

While Hudson, who had built his career on stalwart, manly leading roles, was reportedly nervous about trying his hand at humor on the big screen, there’s no hesitation in the end product. The comedy is brisk and witty, with Day and Hudson snapping off one-liners at one another like seasoned pros, aided ably by the always-reliable Thelma Ritter (whose drunken maid, Alma, almost steals the entire movie) and the eternally-befuddled Randall. And there’s a whole lineup of minor characters who have shining moments of comedic brilliance in the film–my particular favorite is the nightclub singer (Perry Blackwell) who realizes Brad’s game and sings the song “You Lied” in tribute to him … to which he responds with a roguish wink.

The character of Brad is an interesting one to consider because, in essence, he’s a real jerk. He dangles multiple women on the line–literally and figuratively. When one woman coos over the telephone, “I love you,” Brad’s response is a condescending, “I know” (you thought Han Solo originated that particularly heartfelt response, didn’t you?). And his mission to bed Jan becomes increasingly mean-spirited as the film continues. While playing the part of Rex, Brad also inserts himself into the “relationship” between Rex and Jan, calling her to warn her of the dangers of Rex’s “cowboy act.” He tells her Rex is going to try to lure her to his hotel room … and then ”Rex” brings her up to a hastily-rented room to fetch a coat. He tells her Rex is probably a “mama’s boy” … and “Rex” daintily lifts a pinkie when sipping his drink at the cocktail bar that evening. It’s almost cruel, the way he continually screws with her mind.

Yet we forgive Brad, as Jan eventually does, because … well, wouldn’t you forgive him, too? Hudson’s charm and ability to force the audience to empathize with Brad, particularly as he wages his campaign to win Jan back after the “great reveal,” goes a long way toward making his character seem less an unmitigated ass and more a misdirected, soon-to-be-reformed heel.

There are light elements of screwball sprinkled throughout the film, particularly the final scenes in which Brad, angered by Jan’s method of revenge (which involves turning his apartment into a scene worthy of Cirque du Soleil) kicks open the door to Jan’s apartment, yanks her pajama-clad butt out of bed, and carries her through the streets of New York to his apartment. These moments generally don’t overwhelm the film–the action, and the humor, stay heartily down-to-earth.

The only motif in the film that rings a note of ridiculousness is Brad’s series of fleeting interactions with an obstetrician and his nurse, whose office is located down the hall from Jonathan’s. Trying to hide from Jan one day, Brad ducks into the doctor’s office and begins complaining to the nurse about the “strange pains” he’s been having. The disbelieving nurse fetches the doctor while Brad slips out of the room, and the doctor, thinking that Brad might just be a miracle of modern science, berates the nurse for her “limited” thinking. While these two characters do end up providing a so-cute-it-almost-hurts coda to the film, the three scenes in the medical office are little more than pockets of painfully strained farce in a generally light and frothy picture.

Despite that minor quibble, Pillow Talk is a delight, pure and simple, from start to finish, and a must-see movie for fans of romantic comedy. If you want to see how the genre should ideally be done (attention, makers of crappy Jennifer Lopez ”comedies” like Maid in Manhattan), there’s truly no better example than this.

SUtS: Thelma Todd

Brandie’s choice: Monkey Business (1931)

Airing at 8:00PM EST

Thelma Todd is somewhat overlooked today, as not many modern audiences remember her tragically short career. She died at the age of 29, having completed over 100 short-subject and feature-length pictures in the ten years between her debut in 1926 and her death in 1935.

Her death was surrounded by controversy and is still considered by some to be one of the great unsolved mysteries of Hollywood history. In December 1935, Todd was found in her car, her death ruled a suicide by carbon-monoxide poisoning. Conflicting reports resulted from the police investigation into Todd’s death; some acquaintances claimed she had been feeling depressed for some time, and still others firmly stated that Todd had been quite happy in the wake of an acrimonious divorce.

Whatever the cause of her death, whether intentional or not, the specter of her strange demise eclipsed attention to her rather prolific career, which is a shame. Todd was a wonderful actress, equally adept in comedy and drama (as demonstrated by her performance in the original 1931 film version of The Maltese Falcon, in which she portrayed Iva, Miles Archer’s devious wife). But her greatest success lay in divining laughs from her audience. Todd, a truly talented comedienne, held her own against some of her most manic and gifted male counterparts: Laurel and Hardy (see Carrie’s recommendation below), Charley Chase, Buster Keaton, Jimmy Durante, and the Marx Brothers, her costars in my choice for today.

Monkey Business marks the third screen appearance of the Marx Brothers, and their first film from an original script. Their first two pictures, The Cocoanuts (1929) and Animal Crackers (1930), were based on the brothers’ Broadway shows. Business was based on a screenplay written by S.J. Perelman and Will B. Johnstone, but the film features so much improvisation on the parts of Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo that assigning credit for certain parts of the script is a difficult task.

In the movie, the brothers play four stowaways on an ocean liner who are discovered by the irascible captain and his crew. After an extensive chase around the ship, the brothers find themselves on opposite sides of a gang war, wherein Groucho and Zeppo are hired as bodyguards for one gangster, Briggs (whose wife, Lucille–played by Todd–is lusted after by Groucho), while Chico and Harpo are hired as bodyguards for his rival, Helton. As you can imagine, the typical Marx Brothers’ nuttiness ensues.

This movie is usually ranked among the brothers’ best work (though I am partial to Duck Soup and A Night at the Opera myself). And though Todd is not the brothers’ most memorable female foil–that title belongs to the inimitable Margaret Dumont–she is none the less effective playing against notorious scene-stealer Groucho. You won’t quickly forget the so-called “Ice Cream Blonde” once you’ve seen her in action.

By the by, this was not Thelma Todd’s only encounter with the Marx brand of craziness: she would go on to costar with the Marx Brothers again in the following year’s Horse Feathers.

Carrie’s choice: The Bohemian Girl (1936)

Airing at 2:00AM EST

This caught my eye because of the title. The plot is pretty fun too: the Count’s daughter is kidnapped and raised by gypsies, and doesn’t know about her noble birth. Thelma Todd plays the gypsy queen’s daughter, in her last role before her death in 1935.

It’s a pretty classic story. Little Arline has some pretty rotten luck, getting kidnapped and then later thrown in the dungeon for trespassing on what should be her own property. It’s a fairytale kind of story, and that’s always fun. But it isn’t the same fairytale again, and there is certainly plenty of misfortune in this one, which could be why Disney hasn’t picked it up yet.

It has to be a fun movie. I mean, check out the costumes:

Straight out of a storybook. It’s classic on several levels, which adds to the levels of appeal.

Nobility, gypsies, secrets, errors… it has all the great plot twists we crave. Starring Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy (oh yes…), along with Thelma Todd, it promises to be quite a movie. And by quite a movie, I mean quite a crazy movie. I’d be disappointed otherwise. I mean, just look at the poster. We all need a little comedic tragedy, or tragic comedy, or just plain insanity in our lives. However, this one plays at 2:00 am, so unless you’re a member of the late-night club, you might want to DVR it. I am!