A look back at The Philadelphia Story

I didn't get nearly as much time to focus The Philadelphia Story as I would've liked, but I because it's such a popular film, I was able to get plenty out of it from the few resources I did get a hold of. And while, again, this isn't a true screwball comedy, as an in-between film, The Philadelphia Story has a bit of the genre's characteristics, while evolving the romantic comedy at the same.

Looking back at the different aspects of the genre, George Cukor did with this film what he's very good at, establishing a sense of balance between comedy and drama. So while in a screwball comedy, hijinks are off from the start and continue from there on out, here we have a comedic opening quite appropriate for a screwball comedy, but then the pace slows down and things get quieter. At the same time, the dialogue between the characters is quick and smart. So while the dialogue is funny and quick, the story itself runs at a slower pace. This in itself implies that while there are screwball characteristics, this film is if anything a variant of one from the genre.

The romantic leads are not typical screwball heroes. While they each have sharp tongues, the hero is barely on screen for most of the film. The other abnormality is the presence of three eligible bachelors for the heroine. The most stand-out characteristic of this film though is that none of the characters, not even the supporting cast, is a parody of what they represent. Whereas in a typical screwball film, the parents would be dim-witted or over-stressed with the trivialities of their lives, here they're more realistic. You're never really laughing at them. Dinah and Uncle Willie are there for laughs, but their behaviors aren't exaggerations of their characters. But, much like in the screwball comedy, these characters are there for comic relief and so the similarities continue.

Another aspect of the screwball comedy is the differences between the classes. While in this film you do see that between Mike and Liz, and even George, in comparison to the Lords and Dexter, the film doesn't try to make fun of them. In fact, George doesn't end up with Tracy in the end. Tracy isn't the screwball heiress, and Dexter isn't the screwball hero stirring up mischief to get his way in the end. Although, again, you could say that Dexter does stir the pot in that he sets things in motion by brining Spy magazine into the Lords' home, Dexter takes a back seat and let's things happen. And while we do see Mike's disdain for the privileged, it remains that and never gets any further. In fact, he tries to get Tracy to open her eyes about George, but other than that, there's no working class member schooling the rich here. Whereas in a screwball comedy you would laugh at Tracy the entire time, here you learn to feel sorry for her in spite of the fact that she's filthy rich. She's got problems too, and it's okay because she's human.

And to lighten things up in the end, Cukor speeds up the final scene, much as how a screwball comedy is. One moment Tracy has called off her wedding to George, the next she's declining a marriage proposal from Mike, and then she's accepting Dexter's marriage proposal. They walk down the aisle and Spy magazine happens to be there and snaps a picture in the end. It's a perfect bookend to the opening of the film.

Having looked at The Philadelphia Story, it's pretty clear how different this film is from a screwball comedy. At first glance, one could mistake it as such, but upon closer look the specifics cannot be missed. Cukor evolves the romantic comedy with this film, taking it one step further and creating a more sophisticated and realistic story of two people getting together, while at the same time showcasing the craziness of it all.

Dueling heroes

I really wanted to take a closer look at The Philadelphia Story script, but unfortunately I don't have a copy of it and I never got around to grabbing the play to at least compare and contrast. And from the DVD commentary, apparently there were some significant changes, but alas, I couldn't manage it. I did find a couple of radio plays that were aired in the 40s, but having read them, they're really an edited version of the film, and not even the play. So I thought I'd look at the dueling heroes in Tracy's life: George, Mike, and Dexter.

Tracy's fiancé, George Kittredge, is right off the bat the wrong guy for Tracy. This we know for many reasons, including the fact that he isn't one of the three leads on the billboard above the title. Mostly, though, we know he's wrong for her because in the beginning we see the funny exchange between Tracy and Dexter and know that those two are meant to be together, so whoever comes along has to be wrong. When we finally get to see George, we're told he's not from the same social class. He gets on screen in brand new riding clothes and he looks out of place next to the Lords, who've all got pressed riding clothing, but obviously they're worn in. George's clothing, in contrast, even look more stiff. But the best example of him being out of place is when he tries to mount the horse. He refuses help and insists on doing it alone and for a good minute or so, he's trying to get mount the creature he calls Bessie as the Lords look on. I suppose one could go so far as to say this alludes to his inability to get a proper rein on Tracy, but it's truly a comical look at a fish-out-of-water situation.

The interesting thing about George is that he's not buffoonish. In a screwball comedy, he'd be blatantly wrong for Tracy in a caricature way, think Dan from The Awful Truth or even King Westley from It Happened One Night. They're both extremes of the wrong man for the heroine. Here, though, George is more realistic, and yet we know he's wrong for Tracy without the screwy characteristics. Again, this is mostly due to the great introduction we're given of him. The two don't belong together. He tells her he'll be her an ivory tower; he sees her as a goddess and truly worships her. So when she finally disappoints him when he finds her drunk in the arms of Mike, he obviously assumes the worst. When you put someone on a pedestal so high, they're bound to fall off eventually, and hard. This, of course, is an easy excuse for George and Tracy to not end up together, but what cements the fact that they don't belong is that he assumed the worst possible scenario. And while he is willing to forgive her, he starts by putting restrictions on her drinking. Tracy obviously deserves someone more forgiving than that.

Macauley Connor of South Bend, Indiana--Mike to his friends--is perhaps the one of the three whom you'll think Tracy will end up with. He seems to have all those characteristics that is typical of any romantic comedy, including the screwball. He's not just the complete opposite of Tracy, but he resents the society crowd. He hates covering the beat for Spy Magazine and goes into the Lord household with preconceptions on the entire family. When he meets Tracy, he immediately despises her, but when he finds her in the library reading his book of short stories, which she calls almost like poetry, he starts seeing her in a new light--well almost. The thing about Mike that makes him so likable is that even though Tracy does begin to warm up to Mike and offers him a cottage she has so he can devote himself to writing full-time, he remains true to his principles. He doesn't take her up on her offer because he doesn't want freebies, and he calls her and her lot out on their ways. She in turn calls him a snob, which he is. There's a dynamic going on between the two of them that is so palpable, you think they're falling for one another. He woos her with words, "there's a magnificence in your eyes, your hair," that Tracy can't help but to tell him to keep talking.

How often do you get such confusing options in a romantic comedy? We can rule out George, but Mike is pretty likable, and gets on great with Tracy. But his purpose is more of one who tries to build up her self-esteem again. After her father basically tells her if she'd been a good daughter, then he wouldn't have found the need to go after another young thing--I know, it sound incestuous--Tracy goes to her party and gets trashed. Mike, also trashed, seems to be on a mission to get through to her that George isn't the man for her, and in the process, you know, when drinking, one thing leads to another. Only it really doesn't lead to anything more than a passionate kiss, but it's exactly what Tracy needed. So what is Mike? He's kind of the rebound guy, the guy who opens Tracy's eyes so she can see, she's not a goddess, she can be happy, just not with George. In fact, when she thinks she knows what happened the night before in her drunken state, she goes crying to Dexter.

C.K. Dexter Haven makes it clear that he's bringing Spy Magazine into the Lord household because he wants to put the wedding to a stop, but whereas in a screwball comedy you'd see the hero in all sorts of screwy antics trying to get his girl back, Dexter just kind of sits back here and simply sets things in motion. He's a bystander and never really much in the picture. This is quite different in that, in stories in general, we want our characters to do something and not be passive. This isn't to say that Dexter is passive. After all, he is the one who goes to Spy and is willing to get them into the wedding. He visits Tracy and delivers a wedding present, a replica of his boat the "True Love," which sets off a whirl of emotions within her. Dexter's also the one who is still trying to protect Tracy by letting Spy into the wedding in exchange that the magazine won't publish the account of Tracy's father. When given dirt on Spy's editor, he grabs the moment to put a stop to Spy's story on the Lords. All these things show who truly loves Tracy in the end, and with the type of banter going on between the two of them, you know things will always be interesting and heated in that home.

It's an interesting choice to have a romantic lead that does so little of the heavy lifting, if you will. But this in turn creates more conflict within the viewer as well, making things uncertain in the end. As noted in the DVD commentary, you're not really sure who Tracy will end up in the end. I think a huge reason why is because you see so little of Dexter and instead see more of Mike with Tracy. Our minds are pre-wired to believe that the two that are opposite, fight, and are on screen the most will end up together. Not in this case. Yet, Dexter is the one who, rather patiently, is trying to get Tracy to see the truth. And the best part is that when he and George encounter the drunken Tracy with Mike, Dexter is ready to give her the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps because he knows her well, but he understands her, and he is the one whom she's supposed to be with in the end.

This has been rather long and winding, but it is a rather more complex story. There are three men vying for Tracy's attention, and none of them are really that bad. In a screwball comedy, this would certainly have given much laughter, but instead The Philadelphia Story comes off as relatable with real characters and not parodies of heiresses or the privileged or other nutty characters. And when it comes down to two men, the choice is surely a difficult one, but truly the hero who gets to marry Tracy is Dexter.

Tracy Samantha Lord

There are many things I found interesting after listening to The Philadelphia Story’s audio commentary. One of them though is the development of the character of Tracy Lord. Katharine Hepburn personifies her so well, and it’s no wonder as she was written for her. But the what stands out more is the evolution of the romantic comedy heroine up to this point.

Tracy was modeled after Hepburn, with Philip Barry following her around and capturing her mannerisms, her way of talking, even her seemingly arrogance and transferring all that into paper. Barry was able to play up Hepburn’s strengths and downplay her weaknesses so that she came across as likable, but more importantly human.

One of the things about Tracy that everyone alludes to is her aloofness, her air of superiority; she’s even referred to as a goddess. Apparently, these were all things that Hepburn gave off, and in fact, any society girl might give off to the public. While in the average screwball comedy you might see Carole Lombard parodying this kind of girl as a Park Avenue brat, Barry in change has written Tracy as a girl who tries to live in modern times but she’s very much confused and still in need of growth.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this film is that the heroine spends little time with her hero. Most of the time Tracy spends it with Mike, who knows Tracy shouldn't marry George and tries to convince her otherwise. It takes a moment of indiscretion with Mike for Tracy to realize she is as flawed as everyone she faults. Whereas in the screwball comedy the heroine would never realize her flaws as such but instead use them to ensnare the hero throughout the film, Tracy weeps at this realization of herself as a flawed creature, and subsconsciously realizes she's still in love with Dexter.

And yet, for such a modern girl Tracy thinks herself to be, Dexter proposes in the end, she promises "to be yar," alluding herself to his boat, the True Love. It doesn't much matter because you want them to be together in the end when it's clear Tracy and Mike won't work out, but forasmuch as Tracy has feminist tendencies, they all get thrown off to the side in the end with that kind of statement. At the same time though, Tracy is more approachable, likable, but most of all relatable in the end. She's just like us!

Jeanette Basinger referred to The Philadelphia Story as a transition film, and Tracy Lord is very much a transitional heroine as well. She still has that biting tongue and shares such fun banter with Dexter, very much of a screwball comedy. But in this film it seems that romantic comedy evolves to another level, and in order to remain relevant, exciting, and new, the romantic comedy heroine must as well.

Viewing with DVD commentary from Jeanine Basinger

I’ve managed to view The Philadelphia Story a couple of more times and this last time I did so with audio commentary, which is an option that hasn’t been available for most of the films I’ve been watching and it’s a shame. While the commentary could be lame, it could also turn out quite enlightening as this commentary by film scholar Jeanine Basinger turned out to be.

There was plenty of film trivia and behind the scenes information but one bit of information that I got out of this confirmed what I’ve suspected of George Cukor: what a master of balance he truly was in directing films. Basinger made a comment of how Cukor directed films with the right pacing so by the time it made it to the cutting room, the editing was easy.

Basinger also points out how well Cukor was able to translate the stage play into film. And in this he shows how good he is at balancing the comedy with the drama. For a film that is heavy on the dialogue and has quite an ensemble, Cukor always manages to get the right reaction shots from the different characters to give you an idea of what they are feeling or thinking. This is most important for Cary Grant, whom I began to notice had little to do in this film. He basically sets up the conflict and stand backs and watches. James Stewart is the one who does the most action of trying to get Tracy to dump her fiancé. But Basinger points out that Grant is given a harder role instead, he observes and makes comments when asked to and when needed, such as in the end, he takes charge.

Much is said about Tracy Lord being modeled after Katharine Hepburn. Basinger comments that playwright Philip Barry followed Hepburn around and basically molded Tracy after her by copying her mannerisms and dialogue. This is how you get the best acting out of performers, when you write specially for an actor, accentuate their strengths and downplay their weaknesses. In Hepburn’s case, audiences tended to see her as a goddess, almost arrogant. Barry uses this trait and humanizes Hepburn before our eyes. She was no longer box-office poison after this film.

One interesting comment Basinger makes that I took interest in is the fact that this film is a transitional film. It came out at the turn of the decade when screwball comedies were coming to an end and human comedy became the norm as it was more appropriate for the times to come with WWII. There are many examples of this, like the role of the Other Man is played by John Howard for example and not a more comedic actor. There isn’t any slapstick comedy. And in fact, as I’ve noted before, the film seems more sophisticated. Whereas in a screwball comedy you would know that Hepburn would end up with Tracy right away, it’s quite true that you don’t know that here. When Mike proposes to Tracy you think she might say yes. And it might confuse you a bit until you see the reaction out of her when Dexter more or less proposes. For them it’s true love.

There’s plenty of insightful information, in case you’re curious, in the audio commentary of The Philadelphia Story that ends up being a wonderful film lesson. I truly enjoyed listening to it and learned from it. And while this might not be considered a true screwball comedy, which after more viewings it didn’t seem as such, it’s still a wonderful romantic comedy, complex and well-executed. But how is it like a screwball comedy? In the beginning and ending. As Basinger points out, the last scene plays like a punchline to the opening scene. Starts on a funny note and ends on an even funnier note.

Two years later ...

The opening sequence of The Philadelphia Story is much quieter than other screwball comedies. By that I mean there isn’t really any slapstick unless you count the opening scene that takes place two years before the events of the film. But even still while the scene is played for laughs, it’s without dialogue and different from the usual expectations of banter between the two leads. With the rest of the sequence, there’s plenty of dialogue and much of it funny, but the ridiculous factor is played down a bit and in turn makes it a more sophisticated opening than others of the genre.

The first scene introduces the two main leads, without naming them or talking about them, and in essence shows in a short clip the epitome of their blissful marriage together. Cary Grant as Dexter is seen as if quietly leaving the house, except he slams the door shut. And Katharine Hepburn’s Tracy is right behind him with a few things he had forgotten. Now while there’s no dialogue here, there is light, playful music, so you’re quite aware this isn’t a drama. And George Cukor has to be given credit here for balancing the comedy and drama to give it the right effect. There’s exaggeration here but Grant and Hepburn’s faces show enough comedy to make you laugh. When Tracy takes one of the golf clubs out of the bag and throws the bag on the floor, Dexter looks livid and even more so as he watches her. Tracy, with a self-assured smirk of a wife trying to get back at her husband, breaks the club in two and throws it at him. When she turns around and leaves, Dexter follows her and taps her on the shoulder. His instinct is to punch her—and we’ve seen men hit women before in the genre—buy instead he just places a hand on her face and pushes her to the floor before he storms off. Best part? Tracy’s hurt face as she lies on the floor. Again, Cukor manages to tone down the screwball factor here, but at the same time he establishes what all screwball comedies do, the couple that fights together must stay together.

Two years later, Tracy is preparing for a new wedding to George. Here we get introduced to the rest of the Lord household, but not the remaining players. It is in this scene that Tracy’s true character comes out, that of a strong independent woman that won’t hang back so easily. This scene is quiet except for the fact that Virginia Weidler’s Dinah is way too precocious and inquisitive than Tracy would like her to be. It’s Dinah really who brings comedy to the scene with her constant references to Dexter, whom she obviously adores, her theatrics for wanting something more exciting to happen. With Dinah, Tracy engages in some of the banter that happens between siblings at odds, but nothing too hateful like the Bullocks in My Man Godfrey. Tracy’s mother seems to be a more realistic version of high society mother and wife. She seems a bit ditzy but nothing like Alice Brady in My Man Godfrey. Tracy has managed to get her mother to leave her husband and Tracy’s father for his philandering ways. Here Tracy shows her strong feminist character by reassuring her mother she’s made the right decision.

When we’re finally introduced to George, Tracy’s fiancé, the scene takes place by the stables. Uncle Willie, another comic relief character, is also introduced as he reads a copy of Spy magazine. It’s quite apparent how wrong George is for Tracy. He can’t mount a horse without much hassle although he insists on doing it without help, which is a bit metaphorical of his relationship with Tracy. There’s also the fact that him and Tracy want different things when it comes to publicity. He seems to be proud of the fact that he’s worked hard for his money and position, while Tracy’s always had it and doesn’t understand the big fuss. He seems like a nice guy who’s all wrong for Tracy but of course neither realize this.

Finally we get to the end of the opening sequence and we’re introduced to the remaining players and main antagonizers. There’s James Stewart’s Mike and Ruth Hussey’s Liz, a writer and photographer respectively. They’ve been tasked to get the breaking story on the Lord wedding, even though Mike is dead-set on telling his boss that he won’t do any more style columns. Liz is more of a no-nonsense woman and is willing to do the story because they have to eat. Her character is also quite forward and feminist. She has great lines that Hussey delivers with irony. We finally get to hear Grant’s Dexter, who is willing to get Spy access to the Lord home for the wedding. While we never really find out Dexter’s true intentions from his mouth it’s assumed that he wants to get back at Tracy. Or perhaps he wants to get back together.

The pacing gets slow at times and the banter is never done as quickly as it normally does in the genre. But I think this is part of the tone that Cukor wants to set, mostly to do with Tracy’s character development throughout the film. The film is funny but the characters themselves aren’t exaggerations of typical people. And again, I think this is because Cukor's main purpose is to find that balance between comedy and drama, to look at real-life situations, without making them too long and tedious, and instead try to make them entertaining.

It's a much different approach to opening a screwball comedy, but there's no mistake that The Philadelphia Story is very much a comedy with its funny opening between Grant and Hepburn separating. It takes a bit longer than it normally would to introduce all the players, but Cukor tries to bring in a bit of sophistication without all the slapstick humor in presenting an entertaining film.

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

I hadn’t sat down to watch this film in ages. I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw it, but a film with Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn, plus Jimmy Stewart to boot, it’s always, hands down, a delight to watch. The Philadelphia Story is one of those films that I can’t even remember when’s the first time I watched it. I just know I watched it and loved it ever since, mostly because of the banter between Grant and Hepburn. Grant just proves again to be the king of the screwball comedy with this film.

I do remember this film being funnier the first time around, though. Perhaps all the jokes are no longer as funny as the first time, but I had forgotten what amazing chemistry Stewart and Hepburn have here. Their drunken scenes together had so much sexual tension, I loved it! And I do remember that from a long time ago, being confused as to whom I wanted Tracy to end up with, whether Mike or Dexter. And as for Grant, my only complaint is that there wasn’t enough of him. For a screwball hero, I wanted him to do more, but his scenes with Hepburn were great. Their dialogue had great subtext and their faces matched their feelings perfectly.

What I hadn’t expected was to see how much of a play this was. I could see clearly this time around that this had obviously originated as a play, simply by the dialogue. I guess this could account for some of the themes and the seriousness that you see here. There are screwy characters here but this doesn’t feel like the type of screwball comedy that has you laughing the entire time. Tracy Lord has some serious issues here that weren’t exaggerated. Her family on the other hand are all a screwy lot. It was actually great to see Virginia Weidler in a much more comedic role as opposed to The Women. She is much more capricious here, an instigator who roots for Dexter all the way. Roland Young as Uncle Willie is another fun character and Mary Nash as Tracy’s somewhat ditzy yet long-suffering mother is is great as well. On the journalism side, Ruth Hussey is equally great. Her no-nonsense character is practical and brings the right amount of humor to the film, like the voice of the common people who shake their heads at the rich.

Definitely the best part of the film is the character of Tracy Lord and there’s no one else better than Hepburn to portray her. She’s able to bring the right amount of tough attitude but at the same time show the vulnerability to Tracy, a forward-thinking woman of the 30s/40s. There’s a lot of depth to Tracy that I don’t think I really noticed before and want to look at some more. She’s a complex character that I don’t think I’ve encountered before in the films of the genre. So much is devoted at making fun of the screwball heroine that you never get to see a less exaggerated version of her.

Watching The Philadelphia Story after so much time has been kind of eye-opening and I think it’s because it’s a lot more serious than it is funny. It’s still a lot of fun, it would be hard not to be with Grant and Hepburn both as the leads. But I think George Cukor was able to craft this wonderful film through great performances out of the cast. Much like he did with The Women, it seems Cukor knows the right amount of balance needed in a film between drama and comedy in order to give you a film that has characters you care about but at the same time giving you just enough comedy. It’s a great film that is worth the watch just for Grant, Hepburn, and Stewart alone.