Differences in The Awful Truth's script

After having seen a couple of screwball comedies that really work, that the actors personify the characters they represent so well, I can't help but wonder about the script. When I watched The Awful Truth, I was quite impressed by how natural Cary Grant's performance came about that I wondered a bit about the script development. Sure enough, I found out that Leo McCarey encouraged improvisation on the set and that many scenes were filmed on the fly. And while the script has some significant differences with the film, the core story is the same. Even still, at about 180 pages, the script is long and not as funny as the finished product.

One of the biggest differences that gave off a somewhat tedious reading was the dialogue. It just wasn't as sharp as in the film. The jokes that really made you laugh were nowhere to be seen, many of them were Jerry's lines. Too much time was spent on talking about the state of events without really needing for it. I think the great thing about this film is that you know the entire time that Lucy and Jerry are mad for each other. For one, neither wants to let go of Mr Smith, who is the very reason the two met to begin with. And then, Jerry is constantly getting on Lucy's nerve while Dan courts her, cracking sarcastic jokes, and never quite getting over the fact that he is certain Lucy wasn't faithful to him. Lucy's reaction isn't just what Jerry's after, but it's one of a woman who still gets hot and bothered over a guy. So, when the script calls for Lucy to confess and plead to Jerry near the end to give their marriage another chance, it kind of weakens her. Part of her charm is the fact that she's so stubborn at standing her ground. And in the beginning at the club, Jerry says the right amount to signal that he cares about Lucy. He's getting a fake tan and bringing a basket from "Florida" all so she won't get embarrassed, and he won't get the boot. But as the divorce is in process, his constant pestering after Lucy, shows you that he's crazy for her. There's no need for a diatribe in the beginning then for him to go off talking about how Lucy is the perfect wife and a bit uptight that he doesn't want to embarrass her with the type of friends he has, etc. You just have to show it, and that it is exactly what the film does. It cuts out so much of the unnecessary dialogue, which speeds the story along. As the script stands, much of the dialogue isn't even that funny to justify leaving it, and it was a wise decision on McCarey's part to improvise to see what he could get out of the actors. If it weren't for the improvisation, we would've missed the lovely rendition of "Home on the Range" from Ralph Bellamy and Irene Dunne.

One thing that distracted me in the script were some of the changes within the script. I have no idea how the script was written, whether Viña Delmar wrote it chronologically or before filming began. Because of some minor discrepancies, I'm inclined to think that it was written during production, although I'm not sure why if McCarey was improvising. I'd just write an outline. But in any case, the character of Armand in the script goes by three different names. Either that or there were three different paramours in Lucy's not-too-distant past. But I wasn't sure if the names were a running gag that fell short for me. There was a Tony Stewart and then Ricardo del Rio. It wasn't clear, so whatever it was the was going on, it was better that it was dropped and made clear that Armand was the one person constantly being referred to. But this wasn't the only case. Over at TCM, an article states how the Dan character was originally written as English, and this is indeed the case, for about one or two scenes that were eventually cut from the film. But when you read further on, you find out that Dan is from Oklahoma as in the film. I suppose a British man could have relocated to Oklahoma, but it was still distracting. Furthermore, when Dan's mother is once again introduced it's noted that she's British. So, this was something that had me confused and I wasn't sure what was going on. Again, these were minor distractions that didn't take away from the story, but they still distracted me.

Then there was the case of the Vances. In the script, the Vances are introduced before the whole fiasco of Armand, Jerry, and Dan all finding each other in Lucy's apartment. Mr Vance has a bigger role in the script and speaks more, almost cheering Lucy on in the end when he realizes who she truly is. But what bothered me about this introduction of the Vances beforehand is that it implies that Jerry was dating Barbara before the whole fiasco at the apartment instead of what the film suggest that Barbara was more of a rebound for Jerry. It kind of doesn't make Jerry as likable. The whole point of him losing Lucy and then bothering her like a schoolboy does when he's crushing on a girl is all for naught if you're trying to show that he still cares about her. Instead you think he's kind of a cad. The way the film ultimately changes the introduction of Barbara is much better suited for Jerry, as well as the fact that the film spends little time with Barbara and the Vances. We don't really care all that much about them so why spend time seeing them at a country club or a dinner or Jerry asking for Barbara's hand in marriage? It just takes focus away from the real story we care about. With the newspapers clipping montage, enough is shown to imply the seriousness of the relationship. So a good twenty pages are thrown out and for the better. The scene in which Lucy appears as Lola is so long and so uninteresting. Lucy goes on a diatribe that is pro-communism, which I found amusing simply because of the later repercussions of the blacklisted artists in Hollywood. So as amusing as it might be, it was unnecessary and completely going on a rant that was pointless and not all that funny. What is interesting though, is that the script I read had a retake script of eight pages or so in which the whole Lola scene is completely cut and more or less what it turns out to be in the film. A much sharper and concise scene is what we're left with instead, which is what much of the film turns out to be in comparison to the script.

It's always incredibly educational to read the script of a film to see the changes for better or for worse, and in these past readings I've seen both. The Awful Truth is no exception, but what's really refreshing is how in the end the film improves on the script, makes it shorter, funnier, and more relevant and to the point. The use of improvisation I'm sure helped the actors portray their roles more naturally, but it also allowed for a much more entertaining film, and McCarey was wise to go with his instincts on using that technique.