A year of screwball comedies

The past year turned out to be quite an educational one for me, re-watching films, many of which I love, and trying to analyze them in my own way. I have no idea if I got any of it right or wrong, but I think I walk away from this experiment knowing that to have a successful film, the stars really do need to align. It isn't just about the fantastic script, or director, or actors, it all has to come together. Watching The Philadelphia Story with commentary really shows you how every tiny detail was well thought out, from the sets to the lighting, the casting to the rewriting. It's seeing to these details, the perfectionism, that created these fantastic films that still entertain us all these years later.

While I already knew the importance of all the parts in a story, I think what I got most out of this past year was learning all the trivia or noticing the details, memorizing lines. And there were films I gave a chance, when in the past I hadn't. There are a couple that I hadn't watched again and this time I did and tried. Trouble in Paradise I always liked, but it wasn't a favorite. I think after a month of it, I truly, truly enjoyed it and can say it's might be my favorite of the bunch. I say might because I think of The Awful Truth and can't quite decide.

My only regret is that in the last few months, I wish I would've had more time to watch the films. So I struggled toward the end, but was determined. I read scripts and for most was able to see the before and after, that for a film like Nothing Sacred was like night and day. Still wish they would've gone with the original draft. But overall, I'm glad I did this, that I finally took the time to watch a dozen films and really study them, some more than others, but really to understand the mechanics.

And now with this year being over, I walk away a little more empowered with knowledge, and with memories of lots of laughs.

A few final thoughts on Bringing Up Baby

This is another film I don't think I spent nearly as much time as I would have liked. And not because I didn't like it because if anything I've walked away with a deeper appreciation for Bringing Up Baby. This is one of those films that I've heard people either hate it or love it. And it's not a screwball comedy like any of the others. But like most films, the one thing that makes this a classic is the people behind the making of it.

The opening of this film establishes the premise straightaway. Within the first four minutes we know that our hero, David, is in the midst of trying to achieve an important career milestone and that to get it he must impress a Mr. Peabody. David's to get married the next day, but his bride-to-be is a bore who wants nothing but work to be the emphasis of their married life. Next scene, enter Susan Vance. Because these two clash we know that they will end up together, but from the moment we see them, we know we will have one good laugh after another. It isn't so much the dialogue that's exchanged, but again, it's the performances, the way Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant interpret their characters. Pace and tone is established, the story isn't terribly fast, but it's quick enough and filled with hijinks that should be entertaining for all.

Our two leads couldn't have been embodied by more able actors. Grant has the charm and sophistication any girl would want in a man, but here as the absentminded professor, there's more to it. David can't stand the spontaneity that Susan brings to his life, yet anytime he thinks she's in trouble or her feelings are hurt, he can't help himself but help her, soothe her. He drives her crazy but he can't pull himself away. Grant is able to show this in such a hilarious manner, able to say lines that aren't really funny, but somehow when he says it, they are. Then there's Hepburn who takes on the role of Susan with such seriousness, never exaggerating to extraordinary strengths, but personifying her as an actual kooky person who just wants to be near David. She's smart and schemes all in the name of love, and you can't help but find her endearing. It's completely believable when she breaks out in tears that David doesn't want her help that he would then feel bad and change his mind, because she's like a child you can't say no to; there's an innocence to her, but not entirely. And really, you can forgive the mischief, as David does in the end.

Howard Hawks also did a lot with bringing the script to life, in just trying to ground it in reality. This is a story that you can somehow see happening in one of those Weird Stories section in the news. And if anyone doesn't believe it, they should read up a Dave Barry or Carl Hiaasen article. Hawks, though, and this is obvious to me now after I listened to the DVD commentary, allowed his actors to act scenes without interrupting it directorial remarks. Scenes were done in long takes and it does in fact make it seem more natural. The rehearsal these actors must have gone through is believable in that the script itself evolved into a much funnier story, leaving behind bits that may have come across as too expository and not funny enough.

The supporting cast is also great, from Walter Catlett to Charlie Ruggles and May Robson. Everyone gives great performances and help further the story. In fact, when we aren't looking at the leads, it's entertaining to watch any of these characters blubber about their woes and then go on about the leopard. Catlett in particular is hilarious as the constable who's trying hard to do his job but somehow can't quite seem to get any story straight and always ends up believing the wrong thing.

While the dialogue and the pace isn't as sharp as others in the genre, really the film isn't any less of a screwball comedy. There is great bits of dialogue, but overall it's not as smart as other films. And that's not a bad thing. As I've mentioned before, I think where the film lacks in dialogue it makes up in physical comedy, which is somehow more universal and reachable to all audiences. Perhaps though, the one thing never really seen here is the differences between the classes. The working class here is just as crazy as the privileged, which is different but at the same time, for me, it's hilarious and dead on. At the end, everyone is a bit loony, just in different degrees.

Overall, Bringing Up Baby is one of those films that'll make you laugh again and again. Perhaps it's because it was done in a way that comes across so naturally, but mostly I think that it's due to Hawks and his direction of Hepburn and Grant. I don't think anyone else could quite pull off such a hilarious film the way these guys do. And this is because they play it straight, again it's obvious now. Whereas others would've exaggerated, here we see performances done seriously without any intent to be funny, which of course makes it all the more ridiculous and enjoyable. If this is a classic, it's because of Hawks, Hepburn, and Grant. I don't think anyone else could've or could do any better.

Differences between film and screenplay

I was able to find a copy of the Bringing Up Baby screenplay and just read it recently. The differences are enough to show what ended up making the film a classic. Like most scripts from the day, it is long with over 200 pages, and it actually has more scenes that never made it to the screen. But a bigger difference is how some of the scenes evolved into what did end up in the film.

Perhaps the biggest difference I found is how much was shown in the script, whereas in the film these things had been said. The scene in which Susan crashes into a truck filled with birds and Baby has a feeding is expanded. We never see Baby in the pond after the geese and ducks, but in the script we see the fiasco afterward for a short while with Susan going after Baby, while the driver of the truck insults Susan and David.

One scene not in the film that I did find funny is when Susan is captured by the psychiatrist at his home. In the film we see him take her and then the police come for her and catch David nearby peeping in and then the next scene is at the jail cell. In the script, the psychiatrist has an interrogation scene with Susan. He’s trying to get her to reason, to see there is no Baby and she’s after a man. He tries word association and every name is either David or George or Baby and then she ends up with intercostal clavicle only to confound the psychiatrist. It’s one scene that made me laugh to read it and I wonder why it was cut out. Of course, on the page, the psychiatrist is much more aggressive than he appears onscreen. Whereas onscreen he seems absentminded, in the script he just assumes the worst and wants to fight everyone. He wasn’t as funny but rather more annoying. What ends up in the film is just right.

The script also has Baby as a panther instead of leopard. Only in a few pages is there mention of a leopard and I assume it’s because those pages were added as changes to the shooting script. Baby is still from Brazil and he’s got a doppelgänger from the circus running around Connecticut as well. I’m not sure why the change here, but I assume it has something to do with availability. Curiously though, the commentary on the DVD mention that Howard Hawks said he read a story from Hagar Wilde about a girl with a leopard, so I’m not sure what it really was in the end.

Some of the scenes that did end up in the film were either added or changed, not dramatically, but enough to get the right laughs. An observation in the DVD commentary was that once the script was done, Dudley Nichols probably didn’t have much to do with the script afterward and that Hawks took time to rehearse with the actors. From this I assume that much was either revised or improvised while on set. This is true from the first scene in which Alice and David talk about their impending marriage. In the script Alice talks with their colleague about it, and it’s all right, but it’s much funnier when Alice talks directly to David and tells him their marriage will be free of domestic entanglements. You then get to see David’s reaction whereas with the script version you don’t get to see that perhaps he wants more.

A scene different in the script is the arrival of Aunt Elizabeth. In the script, David isn’t as angrily frustrated but rather trying to explain just so he could go. So there’s no “I went gay all of a sudden” jump or anything that follows. There’s no George chasing after him into the room and David trying to get him out. When the intercostal clavicle disappears and David finds out, there’s no calling out for George around the house with Susan echoing David’s cries. And there are many more scenes, but overall you get a sense that the shooting script is really a working script for what ended up onscreen.

While the script for Bringing Up Baby is a long read, it’s still funny to read. I think mostly because in my mind I have the images of the actors and their performances that helped me envision the hilarity of the situation. It’s a strong script with a hilarious premise, and while it isn't completely what ends up onscreen, it's still enjoyable and definitely worth a read to see the differences between what does and doesn't end up in the final cut.

The comedy in Bringing Up Baby

Out of all the things to look at that make Bringing Up Baby stand out, I found it rather difficult to pinpoint what it is that makes it different. As I've mentioned before, the dialogue isn't particularly spectacular, and I personally don't find it to be a fast-paced film like Howard Hawks' other comedy His Girl Friday. Even looking at the plot, there's nothing too unique about it, except the absurdity of it all. But then, the comedy in itself and how it's played is perhaps what makes this film a bit different than the rest.

One of the things pointed out while watching the film with the DVD commentary is the presence of physical comedy in the film and how the actors themselves perform it. There are so many falls throughout the film and actually done by the actors. When Cary Grant enters into the restaurant just as Katharine Hepburn sends an olive flying into the air, he trips on falls flat on the floor. Same for Hepburn when she's on the phone and trips over the cord, she falls face down and lands on her elbows. Both end up in "shallow water" and while we don't see the whole incident with Baby chasing the goose and chicken, we do see Grant in the car all covered in feathers, his face none too pleased. This is something that for example, you don't see in Trouble in Paradise, and not really in Twentieth Century either. Preston Sturges would use physical comedy in his films, and in his script for The Good Fairy, there's certainly some of it. And something that's mentioned in the DVD commentary rings true, that Hawks pushed further with this film, he took what he did with his last screwball and amplified it. He really put in the slapstick in this film.

Grant is able to pull off comedy in a way I don't think I've seen other actors do. This isn't to say other actors aren't as funny, it's just that Grant manages to make it look so natural and easy. The faces he makes are funny and they aren't intentional either or come off as forced. He looks absolutely hilarious as the absent-minded professor stuck with a screwball heiress and running around Connecticut after his intercostal clavicle bone and a leopard at the same time. Any time he is trying to get a word in and Hepburn won't let him, Grant turns and opens his mouth, but then turns away patiently, and he'll raise a finger, but then turn away again and shake his head, and somehow he conveys this feeling of frustration at not being heard, but yet he doesn't speak up about it, which makes it hilarious. Of course, when he does lose it is when he's in the frilly robe and he yells and then steps on Hepburn's foot to get her to shut up. But mostly, Grant just has the reactions of a man in utter exasperation. You can't help but laugh. And then, Grant also has a way of making lines funny that aren't funny. The way he delivers them, and this is true of his other films as well, he just does it in a way that evokes a laugh. There's that line mentioned in the commentary after Hepburn and Grant fall in the water and he say something about them being just wet. It's not a funny line, but the ennunciation of the syllables just makes it funny. Grant makes it enjoyable to watch him play the absent-minded professor, an otherwise dull sort of guy.

And finally there's Hepburn. As mentioned before, she has Walter Catlett help her with the comedy, so as to not come off as trying to be funny. Hepburn plays Susan completely straight and you can see it. She's that good. There's no exaggeration whatsoever in her performance. Whereas another actress would play the screwball heiress with just the right amount of exaggeration to indicate this is for laughs, Hepburn plays her seriously. This is her world and things are as the way she sees them. It brings to the ambiguity where you wonder, does she really not realize that the golf ball she played wasn't hers? Does she really not realize that that isn't her car? Is Susan really that vapid? But she's so endearing; our sympathies are with her. She wants a husband and she goes after David. If Hepburn had tried to play her funny then she may have started to exaggerate certain mannerisms and then perhaps it not only wouldn't have been as funny, because it would've been forced, but you wouldn't sympathize with her either. This is most apparent when Grant tells Hepburn that he doesn't want her to help him look for Baby or George and Hepburn starts to cry. The crying isn't really forced. Playing it forced would've made her seem manipulative, which she is, but Susan goes about it in such an innocent way, like a child. The crying comes across as heartbroken, but not dramatic, it's just right, and David falls for it and the continue with their misadventures.

It's very interesting to look at the comedy of Bringing Up Baby, to see the choices that Hawks made when bringing the story to life and to see why it works so well. And one of the things I realized why I enjoy it so much after these viewings is because of the physical comedy, I just don't think I realized how Hawks worked with the script and actors to make it funny. And the even more interesting thing about it is that dialogue is such an important trait of the screwball comedy, but here it isn't as important. There are great lines, but really what makes this film stand out is the physicality of the comedy and the delivery of the performances.

Watching with Bogdanovich commentary

I took the time to watch Bringing Up Baby with the DVD commentary from Peter Bogdanovich and it turned out to be quite insightful. While some commentaries don’t offer much and others have a film scholar talking throughout the entire film, Bagdonavich fits somewhere in the middle, recalling an interview with Hawks and noting some observations. At the same time he laughs from time to time and you see that he’s really enjoying the film and in a way watching it with you.

One thing Bogdanovich points out is how Hawks grounds the film in reality by not trying to be funny. His whole point while making the film is to have these funny situations happening to these characters and have the actors play it straight. According to Bogdanovich, Hawks had Walter Catlett, who plays the constable, help Katharine Hepburn at playing Susan by not trying to be funny. In fact, if you look at all the characters you’ll see that they’re all played seriously. Hepburn and Cary Grant both play these zany characters, the screwball heiress and the absent-minded professor, without trying to get laughs. It’s evident in their faces and their gestures, more so for Grant who keeps a straight face while Hepburn is bent over in laughter.

Another point brought up throughout the film is the long takes. It's something I didn't really notice. I think I paid attention more to the scenes with the leopard and wondering either how they were made or if PETA would be having a field day if they were around back in the day. But Hawks here actually films long takes, barely cutting. He told Bogdanovich that it allows for a more organic feel, letting the actors do their things and manipulating little in the editing room. And it's quite true. In fact when you take a closer look you appreciate the amount of practice and professionalism it took to film the scenes. And the best part is how funny the film turns out in the end. And again, there's this whole thing about basing it on reality, trying to make it as realistic as possible. Doing the long takes allows for that, there's no trickery, and there's no break of momentum. These funny situations are happening in real time.

If you look at the film you'll notice that most of the action happens at nighttime, which Bogdanovich says was rare for the time, although I don't really notice time of day in other films. How he says it though makes sense because comedy is meant to be seen, so it tended to take place during the daytime. Bogdanovich calls it daring for Hawks to use nighttime setting.

So why didn't it do well at the box office? Hawks apparently thought that there wasn't a single sane person in the film. We sympathize with Susan but it's obvious she's a bit screwy. Every character in the film is crazy and that's what Hawks thought was the problem. He needed a couple of normal people in order for audiences to click with the film or to further ground it in reality. One character he thought should've been normal is the groundskeeper character, who Bogdanovich points out is perhaps the weakest part of the film.

I have to say that I actually quite enjoyed listening to Bogdanovich talk about Brining Up Baby with his anecdotes and observations in between laughs. It made it enjoyable and brought a new perspective in watching the film and learning a bit about how it was made.

From the museum to the golf course

Looking at the opening sequence of Bringing Up Baby, once again there’s quick establishment of the premise as well as the introduction of the two leads. And interesting enough, the sequence is divided into two scenes that contrast the differences in David’s life: life before Susan and life after meeting Susan.

Plenty is shown in the first scene with David. We see him in his quiet yet dull life that is basically made up of museum work. He sits thinking of where to fit his bone in the gigantic dinosaur fossil he’s been working on for the past four years. His fiancée, Alice Swallow, is no-nonsense woman who makes it clear to him that their marriage will be free of all domestic entanglements. David asks, “You mean…?” And Alice says, “Oh, yes!” When he hugs her and wants to celebrate the news of the arrival of the intercostal clavicle, Alice pushes him away. Even their John Kerry lookalike of a colleague tries to help out by suggesting they go celebrate, but Alice won’t hear of it. We know this is not a match and that David, such a geeky doctor in glasses, surely deserves better. But David has to go as Alice reminds him of his important golf date with Mr. Peabody. She tells him the importance of first impressions and the money that could be coming to the museum.

At the golf course, David meets with Mr. Peabody and tries to talk to him, but doesn’t know the proper etiquette of when to discuss business. Soon enough he’s off chasing after Peabody’s golf ball. This is when he meets Susan, the screwball heiress playing golf with Peabody’s ball. She’s enough to make anyone go mad, but somehow David stands there and tries to reason with her, which she doesn’t quite get. When she leaves and starts to take his car, David once again goes after her and tries to get her to stop, but she’s baffled at his insistence that everything is his. In the end she drives off with David hanging on to the car and Peabody watching them go off.

The interesting thing here is that the story doesn’t move at the quick pace of most screwball comedies. The dialogue isn’t fast at all, in fact if anything it stalls the movement of the story while a character tries to get Susan to understand. The difference here is that it doesn’t lag behind, but mostly it’s entertaining. The expression on Cary Grant’s face while he tries to explain the golf ball’s ownership, and then Katharine Hepburn’s airy responses to everything he says, this is what makes the film so enjoyable. And this is why you keep watching. You see the dull life David has and then you meet Susan and you know that’s what he needs.

The opening sequence of Bringing Up Baby isn’t as fast as others in the genre, but it is quick to establish the premise and introduce the leads. The dialogue might not be as fast-talking either, but it’s very funny and entertaining. Mostly, the characters and performances is what makes this scene stand out the most. They’re fun to watch and their misadventures promise a good laugh.

Bringing Up Baby (1938)

Having had eleven films plucked out from a list, I wasn't sure what to watch for the last one. I was between a couple of Sturges film, but I decided on a different film. Bringing Up Baby has got to be one of my favorite films. This is the film that somehow always makes me laughs no matter how many times I've watched it. The jokes don't get old, the performances always seems fresh, and it is by far one of the most ridiculous but enjoyable stories that I've watched on film.

I'm not sure I can pinpoint down one thing that makes this such an entertaining film, but I think a lot of comes down to the performances from Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn. They give such wonderfully exaggerated performances of their characters, and they work so well together, Grant as the nerdy David and Hepburn as the screwy Susan. They are complete opposites, yet their attraction to one another seems inevitable and hilarious. Grant, I think, is just easy to watch, always charming, even as an absent-minded professor. Hepburn here gives Carole Lombard a run for her money as the dim-witted heiress. I don't think there are many if any at all that can do the heiress quite like Lombard, but Hepburn does great here. She's never irritating, but instead she just makes you laugh with her responses to just about anyone and her reactions.

As usual, this film is filled with great lines. And these lines actually stand the test of time, because I still laugh whenever I hear them. Perhaps part of the reason is the delivery of the line, the action going on at the same time. There's a way in how Grant says to Hepburn that he's finds himself strangely attracted to her that makes me chuckle just thinking about it. But the great thing about the lines is that it doesn't linger on the joke too much. They're said and the action continues, as screwball comedies do. The pace is right and everything moves along quick enough.

The whole plot as well is a lot of fun. The idea of leopards in Connecticut and a screwball heiress and straight-laced professor running around trying to find one while also trying to find the intercostal clavicle of a dinosaur fossil David's been working on for the past four years, it's enough to make you dizzy just thinking of it. But the truth is that this silly storyline just draws you in with all the antics and the wonderful cast. Hepburn runs around on dainty toes while Grant has more costume changes than male actors usually do. The supporting cast is also outstanding, especially the constable and the psychiatrist, who interpret things so differently as if they're almost dense and end up feeding the misunderstanding about the entire situation. And then of course the ending, which has all the players behind bars while the leopard is loose in the police station. It's a wonderful scene. And what does David learn from all this? That it was the best weekend of his life and he thinks he loves Susan, who of course knew from the beginning she would marry him.

I don't think this film did well commercially when it originally came out. I know Hepburn was deemed box office poison at one point and I'm not sure if it was after this or not. Whatever the case, the truth is that Bringing Up Baby is by far a truly entertaining film with some remarkable performances. It does indeed have a ridiculous plot, but at the same time it's got memorable lines that'll keep you laughing. If anything, this is a must-see just to watch Grant and Hepburn on their own and with each other, and with a leopard, and with a dog. It's one not to be missed.