A couple last thoughts on Twentieth Century

This is one of those films that going in I really didn’t care for but in the end it grew on me. Twentieth Century ends up being one of those films that’s really funny once you get past some of its shortcomings. It’s not only got entertaining dialogue, but it’s got a great performance from John Barrymore.

To start off, the film sets the tone right away, if not at a good pace, but nonetheless, you know this is a comedy. My favorite lines before Barrymore graces the screen come from Roscoe Karns, ever delivering those sarcastic one liners. In fact he and Walter Connolly show once again how important the supporting cast is. They’re supposed to be buffoonish but they have to be entertaining and that Karns and Connolly pull off magnificently. Karns the drunkard always at Barrymore’s bidding and Connolly as Barrymore’s loyal friend, forever getting fired and always on the verge of a heart attack.

Breaking down the film and reading the script definitely helped me stay focused throughout the story, otherwise I got bored somewhere in between. From Carole Lombard’s shrieks and the lack of a better audio track, the film tends to lag once the story moves on the train, and this is precisely when it should feel as if it were speeding up.

Lombard was a problem for me and I noticed it more so after reading the script. Had this been the first film of hers I had seen then perhaps her performance may not have bothered me as much. But when you go into a screwball comedy to see the queen of screwball, and it’s not just that you heard, you’ve seen her at her best, you go into the film with high expectations. This I believe is what the problem was for me. Her performance here isn’t bad, it’s just not great, and as I’ve mentioned she almost comes off as if she’s trying to act like Jean Harlow. In fact, I think Harlow might’ve been better in this, and I say that simply because I think I could tolerate Harlow’s whining, but I couldn’t for Lombard. It’s not that Lombard can’t play a spoiled princess because she has done it beautifully before, it’s just that this spoiled brat is completely unlikable. And while that might be on purpose, there should be something charming about her, and I couldn’t find it.

The only good thing about Lily being unlikable is that it makes sense that she ends up with Jaffe in the end. But even that’s a bit off because while Jaffe is unbearable, Barrymore has so much fun with him that you like Jaffe, you want him to get what he wants in the end, but then you wonder how he could put up with Lily. Barrymore is perhaps the most enjoyable thing out of this film. To watch his facial expressions go from patient to serious to melodramatic is all hilarious. He is such an actor and then when he has to go under disguise he says he can’t believe he’s sink so low as to become an actor. He’s comical and entertaining every bit of the way.

I couldn’t say that Twentieth Century is one of my favorites but it’s certainly isn’t bad or as unwatchable as I deemed it back years ago the first time I watched it. There’s a great cast, a fantastic lead in John Barrymore, but mostly it’s got a funny script, the one thing that holds the film together. It’s not like the screwballs that would come later on, but it certainly laid the groundwork for the genre in time to come.

Screwball origins

Watching Twentieth Century more carefully proved to be much more enjoying in the end. There's something about this film that makes it difficult for me to keep interested. But the funny thing is that taking in each scene and making notes I was able to fully grasp the story and notice things I hadn't really paid attention to before. I was also able to see why I didn't like certain aspects of the film or its structure. The best explanation I have for what I see as imperfection of a screwball comedy is that the screwball was still developing.

I believe this film, along with It Happened One Night, is described as one of the first screwball comedies. I actually think, especially after several viewings, that Trouble in Paradise should get a mention as well. But there are some that consider Twentieth Century to be one of the first if not the first screwball comedy. That being said, I remember when I first watched Trouble in Paradise how incredibly slow I found it. I think one of the problems with Twentieth Century is that the pacing isn't as quick as the genre demands. Of course, there are no standards set before since the genre developed in reaction to the Hays Code, which didn't go into effect until the latter part of 1934, after this film premiered.

The pacing problem, as I've already mentioned, is due largely to the fact that too much focus is placed on Jaffe in the beginning of the film. Understandably so, Jaffe is the lead, the most entertaining character, and the one whom your sympathies lie with. Normally, if I'm entertained, I can forgive things like not revealing a full premise right away, but unfortunately this is difficult because of the sound. I wonder if the film would improve with a soundtrack or even a better audio track. But again, the pacing needs to be established straight away, and while the tone is set from the beginning, something always seems off because the story doesn't really move along; it just stays in the theatre rehearsal for almost 16 minutes, all to showcase Jaffe's eccentricity.

Then there's Lily Garland, who is perhaps the biggest flaw in this film. Carole Lombard doesn't do a bad job. In fact, in a scene at her apartment, she starts making faces of people, and you see immediately the screwball queen there. The problem lies with Lily; you can't stand her. The whole point with a screwball couple is that they can't live with one another, but it doesn't matter because they belong together and you root for them because you like them in spite of their zaniness. At first, Lily seems like the young ingenue you'd expect, but after three years Lily's frustration is evident and you understand it. But slowly, and most especially during the train ride and on, you see the true spoiled brat that Lily has become, and she isn't charming at all. This isn't Irene Bullock, who's clear stupidity is so endearing in a way you can't explain. This is Cordelia, the Park Avenue Brat you want Godfrey to make cry.

While you certainly can agree in the end that Lily and Jaffe deserve one another, it's hard to enjoy a film in which one half is just plain annoying. John Barrymore as Jaffe is truly a delight to watch. He morphs into different characters and takes on voices of other characters so seamlessly. But as Jaffe he's truly entertaining to watch. And only because he wants Lily will you accept this union in the end, but really, if he doesn't get her in the end, it's okay.

I think a lot of the things that make a film good happen to late in the film. There should've been ample opportunity to showcase Jaffe's character throughout the film without needing to have the first 16 minutes of him interacting with the cast and crew. The film should've started three years later and then with Lily leaving Jaffe for Hollywood. The stakes are drawn high when Jaffe is in ruin and close to losing his theatre. The race for him to get Lily to sign on to another play is important, but again, it happens too late. There's the distraction with the con-artist who sticks Repent stickers all over the train, and he proves vital in the end, but his storyline isn't as entertaining, at least not to me. These are things that are all important to the screwball but needed more refinement.

Finally, the dialogue is the single greatest thing, well along with Barrymore, that comes out of this film. And a lot of it is hard to follow, which I blame on the audio track of my copy of the film. When I sat down to rewatch this, I found myself laughing even more at some of the lines that had just gone over me before. But the dialogue helps set the pace and tone, and if the film doesn't drag, as I've said before, it's due to the dialogue. None of this is more evident than near the end of the film, when Jaffe pretends his dying and cons Lily into signing a contract. There's so much fast talk going on here and you feel like you're in a whirlwind and before you know it, Lily belongs to Jaffe all over again. That feeling of "what happened" is exactly the feeling screwball comedies leave in the end, and this film sets that bar for future screwballs.

Overall, I think I was able to fully understand why I don't love this film as much as I want to, and the bottom line is that it isn't perfect. The leads need polishing, the pace needs to be quickened, the premise needs faster setting up, but then there are other things like dialogue and super fast denouements that show clearly how Twentieth Century is a forerunner to the screwball comedy. And for this reason, it's good to watch to see how the genre evolves from here.

At the Jaffe Theatre

Like most opening scenes, Twentieth Century establishes its tone fairly quickly with its dialogue--the best lines coming from the supporting cast. But while it drags a bit in pace, takes longer than what I'd like to introduce its leads, when you finally get to see John Barrymore in his grandiosity, it's truly worth the wait. Even still, it could've moved along faster and have established its plot earlier on.

This is perhaps the first screwball comedy that I've watched this year that did not establish its conflict in the opening sequence, at least I didn't think so. In the opening sequence you do see the circumstances and proper introductions to the characters and what may come of it, but an actual outright, this is what the film is going to be about, no. You look at the sequence that follows, an extension that blends into the debut performance of Carole Lombard's Lily Garland, and even then you don't really get the conflict. It isn't until the following scene that you get a notion of Lily's life as Jaffe's muse and actress, and that she has grown tired of it and wants out.

What conflict is introduced in the opening scene? Jaffe is an eccentric artist who's discovered an ingenue in Mildred Plotka, whom he has now renamed Lily Garland. Unfortunately, Lily cannot act, but nevertheless Jaffe gets the performance he wants out of her. Barrymore is great as Jaffe. Usually one thinks of Lombard as the great screwball queen, but she's really overshadowed by Barrymore here. To be fair, Lombard isn't given much in this opening, except an eager girl wanting to be an actress. It's Barrymore though who brings on the laughs here. He's first introduced in his office on the floor with a giant feather quill, which he is using to write. When he comes down to the stage to interact with the crew and players, you get a sense of the real diva he is.

While Roscoe Karns says some great lines, it's Barrymore who has the best ones. When he turns to Walter Connolly and vanishes him from his sight, he tells him, "I'm closing the iron door on you." And as he rushes Connolly off stage he shouts back not to send his fat wife after him. Before beginning the rehearsal, he tells each and everyone on stage that no matter what happens, no matter he says from here on out, "I love each and every one of you." When he starts a scene with the ringing of the doorbell, he tingalingalings like a patient but particular old man. He's truly one to watch here. So while there aren't any pratfalls or slapstick, the dialogue definitely sets the tone here and you know that this is going to be a funny film. This dialogue, if anything, allows the movie to not completely drag along.

Unfortunately, because there is so much focus on Jaffe's character, and understandably so, the pacing suffers, and so the opening sequence comes and go, and we still don't know how exactly the film will go forward. You get a sense that it's going to be about Jaffe and Lily, but not much else, just that he's particular and he's training his newfound discovery. Eventually you do get to the conflict later on in the film, but the premise is still a bit too vague in the beginning.

If there's one standout thing about the opening sequence in Twentieth Century it's John Barrymore. He's given the best lines and he's the most entertaining to watch. There's great dialogue that sets the tone and helps speed up the storyline, although too much focus on Barrymore's Jaffe keeps the opening sequence lagging a bit without really establishing the true premise of the film. While Carole Lombard is introduced here, she's not given much until later on in the film. Overall though, based on Barrymore's performance, it makes you want to keep watching to see what exactly Jaffe is going to get himself mixed up in.

Twentieth Century (1934)

I had seen this once before and I have to admit, this wasn’t a favorite. I wanted to like it for having John Barrymore and Carole Lombard, plus it was directed by Howard Hawks. Why shouldn’t I like it? Twentieth Century is a funny film if you can get past Lombard’s shrieking and the lack of a quick pace. It isn’t to say that the film drags on but at times, there’s only so much you can take. But when I could tune out the things I didn’t enjoy, I found some great lines and a funny Barrymore. I simply wish it could’ve sped up a bit and brought down the whining. In short, it’s still not a favorite, but I didn’t dislike it as much as I did the first time.

I really went into with an open mind and wanting to enjoy it—perhaps the last time I had seen a bad print of it—but while I did find the dialogue funny, I still wasn’t as engaged as I should have been.

Good things about this film? John Barrymore is absolutely wonderful here. He has perhaps the best lines and performs the role of Oscar exactly how you would think an “artist” would behave. Carole Lombard is good at times as well, mostly in the beginning of the film when she quarrels with Barrymore of him suffocating her. The supporting cast is also outstanding. It’s nice to see Walter Connolly, who always amazes me in every film I see him, and Roscoe Karns as the comic relief here. And again, the dialogue, when it can be made out, is really very funny. This isn’t surprising since it’s based on a play by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur. Overall, the film has strong points.

Just as well, there are some weaknesses in the film, the big one being Lombard’s shrieking and whining. It might be fairer to point out that the problem really lies within the sound of the film, though. A lot of the dialogue, I felt, is sometimes drowned out by lack of a clear audio track. This makes it hard to follow the story and soon I lost interest, particularly in the train ride. This is also where Lombard’s shrieking begins and instead of it being funny it just turns out to be irritating. You wonder how is it that the queen of screwball could’ve gotten it so wrong. All this drags the film and really it isn’t very long at all so it’s a bit surprising.

I think with a few more viewings that Twentieth Century could grow on me. I think because it is a film from 1934 that perhaps that's why it doesn't run as fast as an average screwball comedy. But if you focus on the good parts, such as Barrymore, the dialogue, the supporting cast, you walk away appreciating the film and especially the effort put into the script.

One last look at Nothing Sacred

I know I've said this before, but I really, really wanted to like Nothing Sacred. It has Carole Lombard in it, so what's not to like? Well, unfortunately for me, there were one too many things that I really didn't care for. Overall, it isn't a bad film, but it seems almost confused, as if no one really knew what kind of story it really was or rather what kind of comedy it was. While Ben Hecht was going one way, William Wellman went another, and then there are the actors who made the most out of the script and the direction given. Had this been put in lesser hands, it would've turned out to be a disaster, but thankfully, for the most part, Lombard saves the film.

Casting the right leads is crucial for a successful screwball comedy and this film did right by casting Lombard in the role. She took Hazel and made her endearing in spite of her selfish motives and deception. There's no one quite adept at mastering the screwball heroine quite like Lombard. From her faces and reactions to the way she prances around like a five-year-old, Lombard makes any character she embodies likable. To top it off, she's absolutely beautiful and glamorous, so you love to watch her out in the town with fantastic gowns. And one of the best examples of Lombard's embodiment of Hazel is when she sits at a table in a night club wearing a fabulous designer gown, all the while she's sipping her drink and complaining and pouting like a schoolchild how New York isn't fun with everyone moping around. To see her is screwball at its best.

But then there are also some miscasts. There's something off about Fredric March in this film, and one might think it's a lack of chemistry between him and Lombard, but that isn't the case. The scene in which he proposes marriage to her after they come out of the river, shows some amazing sparks between them, even if momentarily. March was just given a rewritten script but not any proper direction, and unfortunately, that means he isn't very funny. But he isn't the only miscast. There's also Walter Connolly, who seems as if he's trying too hard to be funny and doesn't end up being very funny at all. The problem with these miscasts is that without the right actors, then you end up with a mediocre film. This casting just adds to the confusion. Connolly should've stolen the show from Lombard and March. His role remained the same more or less from the early Hecht draft, and Connolly should've or should've been allowed to take Stone to his exploitative best. The problem with these two roles I think is that they were written quite cynically and for the film the actors were told to take the same roles to a screwy level.

Having said all this, there were obvious problems with tone. I didn't really understand until I read the script that the film wasn't set out to be a screwball comedy to begin with, but instead it was a satirical look at the circus of journalism. Yes, it's supposed to be funny, but screwball and satire are not the same thing. So initially, the first scene opens up and you think this is going to be a funny film, but the tone wavers after that. Some of the best screwy scenes, though, do come in the town of Warsaw. I loved the treatment Wally got from the townspeople, and my personal favorite was the child who runs over to a passing Wally and grabs his leg and bites it. But March also sets the tone off. His acting wavers from forced comedy to downright drama at points. Wellman failed to tell him that the drama bits are supposed to be exaggerated, or perhaps he saw his comedic skills and let him go right ahead with the drama instead. Unfortunately, all this just confuses you.

More confusion comes in the form of the script. I'll forgive the early filmmakers for making this mistake, but the more names you see credited to for writing in a film, the worse the story gets. Nothing Sacred has two credited writers, but on imdb there are another nine. A TCM article talks about two brought in for dialogue (one of which isn't listed over at imdb) and another two for the ending. That's a total of 12 people working on the same story at one point or another. It's a wonder the film is even watchable at all. Overall, the dialogue was fine, but then a funny line was thrown in and it seemed to come out of nowhere. It was only when I read the early draft that I realized the lines were kept because they were funny, but then the context changed a bit. Another problem with the script? Setups were not paid off. Of course, you wouldn't know it if you didn't read the earlier draft, but one of the best things about setups and payoffs is that you like being rewarded with a good payoff. Makes you happy you were paying attention. The ending, though, suffered the most, but then again, the early draft's ending isn't a screwball ending.

One performance that stands out nicely is that of Charles Winninger, who's really funny as Dr. Enoch Downer. Too bad, though, that in the film, he didn't get the chance to show the Morning Star who the six greatest Americans are. Winninger next to Lombard, personifies a great screwball supporting role. He's the klutzy doctor from a small town, and you wonder how he even got his license. And what was he drinking in the early scene? I feel as if that was another setup that doesn't get paid off. Thankfully, he is given the last line of the film, which again, comes out of nowhere, but he delivers it well enough to make you laugh, until you see the end credit and are reminded of the creepy title cards from the beginning of the film.

Yes, I can honestly admit, I didn't like Nothing Sacred. But really, I didn't like because it's a mess. I can recognize some fine performances and some lovely shots. I still absolutely love the scene between Wally and Hazel when he proposes, just like I laugh when Wally goes around Warsaw trying to find Hazel. But these lovely bits cannot save the film, not even Carole Lombard with her bubbliness. I really wish that Wellman would've been allowed to film the script Hecht wrote. Sure, Lombard would've been stretching her acting legs and perhaps have been seen in a different light, but I'm pretty sure she could've pulled it off, just like she made Hazel completely likable. If there's a reason to watch Nothing Sacred, it's for Lombard. You can never grow tired of her screwiness.

Screwball Satire?

Reading scripts from the early days of talkies isn't the easiest thing for me. I assume that many of the early screenwriters were playwrights to begin with and so needed to explain much stage direction. These kinds of things aren't really seen much in scripts today, unless the director has written the script. In any case, it's can be a lengthy process for me because it doesn't always grab me. So, I'm always hesitant to read an old script. Especially when I see a lot of action lines. This was the case with Ben Hecht's screenplay of Nothing Sacred. Straight from the beginning, he's describing this world, and I'm almost a bit overwhelmed. But truth be told, once I got over it, the story is quite good, and different from what the film turned out to be, and it became clear to me that Nothing Sacred wasn't meant to be a screwball comedy, but really it's more black comedy, it's meant to be a satire.

To be quite honest, I couldn't understand why it is that people love this film so much and I just couldn't see why, other than that Lombard was lovely in it and Charles Winninger was pretty funny, Hattie McDaniel and Margaret Hamilton have essentially cameos but make great use of their small roles. But I couldn't really see what it was that was great about it. I thought because of the change of writers that there was something wrong with the story, and there is, although I couldn't figure out how to make it better. When you reach the end of the film, you kind of know it's going there, but it's not very satisfying. I'm not really laughing a whole lot when Hazel suddenly tells all these leaders of New York that she's not sick and then they all decide the story can't get out. I like the bit about dying alone like an elephant, but that's a line that would have been funnier as a payoff if the film would've kept the setup from the script, but they didn't, and so it's just a funny line only because Carole Lombard knows how to deliver it.

The screenplay is quite cynical, and in the end I almost didn't like it. In fact, as I was getting close to the end I was a bit disgusted by Hazel because in my head I think this is a screwball comedy and suddenly there's nothing funny about kidnapping newborns from African-Americans who are written in such a racist manner that I had reached my limit. But it turned out quite funny and the ending was sweet. I still think the script has some blatant racism in it though, but I know those were different times. I think where the film fails is that William Wellman and David O. Selznick wanted it to be a Lombard screwball comedy, but it wasn't. Whereas in the film, you like Hazel, she isn't really likable in the script, but then again, no one is. Everyone has their own motivations for the whole deception. While Wally and Stone think it's the real deal, they exploit Hazel in order to sell newspapers. Hazel just wants a free tour of New York because she's sick of Warsaw and Dr. Enoch is holding a twenty-two-year-old grudge against the Morning Star for not picking him as the winner of an essay on the six greatest Americans--which is another setup that never gets paid off in the film, but in the script it does. Sure, these are all things that are pretty much established in the film, but the screenplay shows a more nuanced portrayal of these characters.

For the most part, Stone is left intact as a ruthless and exploitative newspaper editor, only there are more headlines he toys around with and to show how desperate he is at selling newspapers he even writes an article when he has to. Wally, on the other hand, seems funnier in the screenplay, but here I think it's because of the lines and so Fredric March's performance is hurt more by the rewrites of the script. The line of the greatest fire in Rome, which comes out of nowhere almost in the film, is said earlier in the scene and within the dialogue context. It seems as if the writers hired to polish up the dialogue only picked lines they liked and forced them onto new dialogue, without really re-reading it through. The marble editor line, though, was kept intact, which goes to show that March couldn't quite deliver it, or at least he couldn't quite do it for me.

The different ending reveals even more about some of the characters. Hazel is seen as even more ambitious than Wally, and suddenly driven to get a bigger story to help out Wally and Stone. On the other hand, Dr. Enoch was robbed of some of his best lines by the rewrite of the ending. This bumbling doctor, who you're always wondering how he ever got his license to practice, does the biggest botch-up in the end. The Sultan shows up again because his wife is delivering four babies and she had met him as a Sultan and so he wanted her to have a sort of formal delivery. He asks for Enoch's help. The good doctor falls for the Sultan's request. Hazel and Wally are trying to get out of New York before everyone discovers who they are and leave Stone behind to take the fall once everyone finds out the truth. Wally feels bad about it and wishes there was a bigger story that would overshadow Hazel. And while quadruplets aren't really that big of a story, when Hazel sees another African-American with recently born twins, she dons a nurse's uniform, tricks the father into going home so she can steal the babies from the nursery. She delivers them to Enoch, who reluctantly agrees to go along with the plan, and thus a new story is born: the world's very first sextuplets, or as Enoch names them, the six greatest Americans--he did say he was going to show the Morning Star the six greatest Americans if it was the last thing he ever did. And so, everyone is in full-mode again and Hazel and Wally slip out. Of course, days later when the two are to be wed, they get a note to go to the hospital at once, and when they all arrive, the scene there is filled with cops, Stone apprehended by a couple of them, Enoch by another pair, the African-American father pointing fingers, and when Wally and Hazel see this, they quietly slip out before getting caught. And what do the six babies sound like when they cry? Why they cry to the tune of the song Dixie. There're more details, but this is the general gist of it, and I must say it's more satisfying than the one in the film. It just seems like everything set up in the beginning is finally paid off in the end. It comes across as smarter and worth more my time. Mostly though, it's a lot darker and cynical of not just journalism but the people that drive it, from the reader to the journalist and round back to the object of the stories. Everyone in the end has their own selfish motives to get ahead and drive the newspaper business booming along the way.

Some of the other differences include the montage in the beginning and the attempted suicide. In the screenplay, the montage is different and then the scenes that follow are a different order of what we see in the film. For what I see in the script, it seems that is perhaps the only part in which the film version is served better. Much of this is more talking, but I liked that in the film these things are shown instead. I don't need to hear about the whole sculpture that is going to be made in Hazel's memorial, but I rather enjoyed watching a poet trying to be inspired by a bored Hazel sitting right across from him. What these scenes did show, though, was just how exploitative Stone could really get, something I kind of already knew, but through these scenes it's definite and who knows, while I could've done without them, perhaps if they would've stayed then Walter Connolly might've given a more convincing performance. As for the attempted suicide, Lombard has a way of making a simple suicide completely screwy. This scene is much funnier in the film, with Hazel getting the nerve to jump and Wally pushing her in and them jumping in only he can't swim. In the script, Hazel is found swimming and Wally rescues her. They banter, but the film version is much funnier, at least when considering it as a screwball comedy.

I'm really glad I was able to find and read the screenplay to Nothing Sacred, mostly because I really wanted to like the film and through the script I realized the true story and was able to better appreciate it. It would be interesting to see the remake to see how loyal it remained to either the film or the script. The screenplay made clear too what defines a screwball comedy, and the cynicism found in Nothing Sacred, isn't something typical of the genre. The film in the end, is an attempt at a screwball comedy but with dashes of satire so it somehow ends up being a screwball satire, which is confusing, and if you read the script, you'll just wish they made that film instead.

Screwball characters and casting

Some time last week I wanted to get into the characters of Nothing Sacred, but I found myself having a hard time, mostly because I was distracted by what I consider the miscasting of two crucial characters. No matter how many times I tried to go about it, I couldn't get past the performances, when I really wanted to just focus on the characters. So I decided to go ahead and read the screenplay first, and while I'm not going to get into that today, some of the characters there are completely different than the ones you see on screen, but then the script is different than the eventual film. But whereas Carole Lombard is able to mold the character of Hazel Flagg into a screwball heroine, Fredric March and Walter Connolly fail to give convincing let alone really entertaining performances in their respective roles of the ace reporter chasing whichever story comes his way and the newspaper editor who will do whatever it takes to get dibs on the lead.

There's not a whole lot more to say about Lombard than what I've already raved about. Is there another actress who can top her in the genre? Probably not. She has a way of taking on roles and just making them endearing. Her way of approaching scenes and reacting to them as almost a child would are completely brilliant. Her face molds itself into so many different reactions, but mostly it gives a wide-eyed wonder. While in My Man Godfrey she plays like a spoiled five-year-old, here Lombard plays like a sheltered rural school girl, out in the city for the first time. And even though she gets spoiled after some time in New York, you still like Hazel. One of the scenes that stand out is after the Heroines of History night in which she takes to the stage only to pass out drunk. That same night she had been complaining to Wally how she was tired of everyone looking at her so miserable. The next day, she's nursing a hangover when a group of school children arrive to sing to her. She declares clearly, like a spoiled heiress, that she'll go mad, but then she relents and says to go ahead and let them up. Hazel's still got a heart underneath it all. And throughout the film, she feels bad that she's deceiving so many people, but of course you laugh at it because she continues with the deception. But with Lombard as Hazel, it's hard to stay angry at her for too long.

Unfortunately, I wasn't quite taken by March's performance as Wally. Here's an ace reporter who just wants to do a great job. All he wants is to get a great scoop and deliver it and make his boss happy, in essence, he just wants to be the best reporter the world has seen. But I was never quite convinced of it. I wasn't sure if he was a crooked reporter or if he just wasn't smart. I mean, really? I'm supposed to sympathize with someone who keeps getting false leads? But I know this is supposed to be exaggerated, but March just didn't play the part. Why wasn't he gullible then like in a Ralph Bellamy sort of way? I'd prefer him to be smarter, though. And I think that was the point, just a reporter who's good but he kind of always gets such bad luck, no matter how hard he tries. But the comedic timing just wasn't there. Granted, it might not be entirely his fault. The finished film's script didn't provide really great lines for him. The line about the greatest fire in Rome. He delivered it at such an awkward time that I always thought it was his fault, but after reading an earlier draft of the screenplay I saw it wasn't him. Even still, he looks pretty ridiculous trying to be funny. It's hard to judge his comedic skills as I haven't seen his other comedies, but from this one alone, I'd say he's not really a natural. Most of his scenes with Lombard, he plays them so seriously that I often wondered if he was in the wrong film. They should've been a little more exaggerated, melodramatic even. I wanted to see him squirm more, but it just didn't happen. I don't think it was for lack of chemistry, I just think March wasn't the right man for the role, or maybe he didn't get the proper lines or the right direction.

Then there's Connolly as Oliver Stone, the supposed ruthless newspaper editor of the Morning Star. Connolly knows how to act, no doubt in my mind, but for some reason, once again as with March, he was miscast in this film. I didn't see anything ruthless about Connolly's performance except only in what came out of his mouth, but the way he actually performed, didn't show money-hungry to me. At first I thought I was biased, having seen him It Happened One Night, but I was convinced there that he's a ruthless business man willing to do whatever it takes to get his daughter back, and yet somehow I wasn't convinced here. I think part of the problem is that I found him trying too hard to be funny. And here's a crucial role that if anything should steal away the show from the two leads, but instead there's a guy whose voice rises and lowers from what seems like out of nowhere, and who tries desperately to look menacingly to a shoe-shiner, but really it's not very funny. I suppose it goes down to a matter of taste, but I really wasn't impressed by it. I do wonder if here it's William Wellman's direction. I feel as if there are too many things going wrong at this point that it boils down to writing and direction, and while there are story problems, this particular one seems like a direction problem. Wellman should've caught on that there was something lacking in Connolly's performance, but he didn't address it. And again, it could be me, but I can't help thinking if a more domineering actor would've been better, or even a funnier one.

One of the things looking at the characters and the actors cast in their roles has helped me see is how important getting the right cast truly is. Lombard, March, and Connolly are all fine actors, but somehow March and Connolly didn't serve their roles up to their utmost potential, which is a shame, because Nothing Sacred has a lot of promise. Unfortunately, I think it comes down on Wellman. Lombard is the only who makes the most of the script changes and truly gives a wonderful performance in which you can love Hazel, but March and Connolly weren't given great direction. It seems as if Wellman and David O Selznick really wanted to make a screwball comedy, but what I'm seeing more as I watch and read up on the film is that Nothing Sacred isn't a screwball comedy; it's really a satire. And that's really why the characters don't seem to come across the way they should.

The bravest kid who ever lived and the public that loves her

Had a couple of more viewings of Nothing Sacred, and decided I'd focus a bit on what I did like, some of the bits that I found clever. This film is often credited for its satirical portrayal of journalism, and while many of my prior viewings I did see it, I didn't think it was anything extra special. Sometimes satire doesn't work with me because it doesn't go far enough, it just shows what a situation is really like instead of going to the utmost ridiculous and sometimes even offensive. I thought perhaps because this film is from 1937 that it might've been different back then, but nowadays, with reality TV, the nonsensical really needs to go up a notch. Well I opened my eyes a bit wider this last time I watched the film and I appreciated its portrayal, not so much of journalism but of the people, in particular the New York public.

Yes, it's true, that this film is still relevant today. News outlets look for the next big story, the crazier the story, the bigger the headline. But what this film does best is that it parodies the public that reads such headlines and they get away with it. It's pretty brilliant, actually. This is the same public that is most likely watching the film, and yet does the audience ever really catch on that the film is poking fun at them? I don't think so, probably because everyone has to agree that the public's obsession with scandal is pretty ridiculous.

Some of the best examples and the irony of it all come in a montage of Hazel's arrival in New York City. There are many headlines, such as, "Hazel Sets New High Point of Courage," says Mayor, which is read by a construction worker on one of the many still-under-construction skyscrapers on a beam up high on above the city while lunching. Then there's also the headline of the poet working a new poem about Hazel, while she sits by, seemingly, bored, as if a muse for a poet needed to sit by like a artist's model. Carole Lombard as always pulls off with such great comedic flair her portrayal of Hazel. That clip is followed by another headline with the beginning of a sappy poem about Hazel being on the brink of death. And who reads this headline? None other than the fisherman selling fish, who wraps a fish up with said headlined newspaper and hands over the product to his customer. Then there's the scene that follows, announcing a luncheon that Hazel attended that day. Once it zooms out, a table of snacks is revealed with the sign underneath it, "All Kinds of Cheese and Bologna Our Specialty." I don't think these particular scenes stood out for me the first couple of times I viewed it, but this last time--perhaps because I was taking notes--they were so obvious and I thought great. This montage makes fun of both journalism, the readers, and the subjects all at once without saying a single word of dialogue. I particularly liked the fish and cheese clips, which really made me laugh this time around.

The montage is followed by the scene at the wrestling match in which Wally tells Hazel not to get too excited over the match because it was all fake. Then he goes on and says some line about the whole thing being rigged and the only thing true about it was the ring that the match was held in. This particular bit just doesn't seem to hit the mark as it should. I like the lines, perhaps it's the way Fredric March delivers them, but they don't seem to go far enough. But I like that this bit is mentioned, it's just something seems off for me. But I do like that a wrestling match and its ridiculousness is used to comment on the current situation. And watching the two wrestlers and the ref go at each other is enjoyable.

The Heroines of History bit was also funny, although not laugh out loud funny. What I did enjoy was that Hazel was being compared as a heroine and also to these particular "heroines." The best part is Katinka who saved Holland by putting her finger in the dyke and then shows which finger--the middle finger. Of course, the scene ends great when Hazel goes up to the stage, completely drunk and passes out. Everyone thinks this is it. Oliver Stone tells Dr Downer not to spare their feelings because they "go to press in fifteen minutes." And this event gets its own headline, "Hazel Collapses."

There's also the reveal of Hazel's deception. Stone finds out and then so does the Mayor and other leaders. Everyone is upset to find out, but of course they all have their reputations at stake. So what do they do? They all agree to let the deception continue, and a headline with Hazel's farewell is sent to press. Hazel vanishes leaving a letter to the people of New York, telling them she wants to die alone, "like an elephant." Then Hazel and Wally are seen on a ship, and a passenger nearly discovers them. Hazel kind of downplays the whole thing and calls Hazel Flagg a phony. The passenger is beyond herself and reprimands her for talking about such a heroic woman that way. I guess the joke's on the public.

The ending seems off to me, and I think that's mostly because it seems abrupt or something of the sort. Of course, because Ben Hecht walked out during filming, multiple writers went in to work on the script, with two of them working on the ending. So that might explain why the ending doesn't seem to flow well, especially because apparently David O Selznick wanted a "happy ending," which Hecht refused. I think all these writers is what makes this film weak to me, but even still I can see some bits of genius in it, it's just not fully explored or developed because there are multiple points of view.

Nothing Sacred hasn't really been a favorite of mine so far, but I'm starting to see what people really rave about. It took a closer look at the film for this realization to happen, but I was hoping it would, and it's always nice to see that you can understand at least one thing of what people rave about in the end. I really like the way in which this criticism, this parody of the whole bit about scandalous stories, how people are obsessed with other's misfortunes and how everyone feeds off it, how it was executed in some areas of the film. No one's innocent here, it's a vicious circle, but you never realize that the film could be making fun of you too. And that is pretty brilliant.

Nothing Sacred (1937)

I really wanted to love Nothing Sacred. After all it has the lovely Carole Lombard, screenplay credit is given to Ben Hecht of His Girl Friday fame, and director duties are handled by the legendary William Wellman. But none of these people could make me love this film the way I wanted to, or even felt I should just because people rave on about it. Perhaps I missed something and eventually I might see the genius to it all, but as for right now, it's all right. The film has some funny/cuteish moments; I get that it's a criticism at journalism, that is still relevant today, but somehow it just wasn't a screwy as I thought it would be, let alone could be.

Lombard was great here in a different role than the screwball heroine of My Man Godfrey. She shows how great she is at comedy, delivering great lines, and just looking fabulous while blubbering about duping all of New York with her misdiagnosis of radium poisoning. I think part of her charm in all films and especially this one is that she's so down-to-earth. You kinda get the feeling that even though she is glamorous she's not gonna stick her nose up at the plebeians running about. And this down-to-earthness about her allows Lombard to play small-town Vermont resident Hazel Flagg so convincingly.

The hero to Lombard's heroine is played by Fredric March as Wally Cook, the New York newspaper reporter in need of a break. I've seen very, very little of March. In fact I had to do a quick check to see what I had seen him in, and it was only two other films. While I don't find anything exceptionally stand-out about him, he's not bad as Wally. He plays him well as the guy who falls for Hazel and at the same time heartbroken at the prospect of losing her to the radium poisoning. I like him more when Wally jumps into the river after Hazel. From there, he confesses his love and then there's the revelation of misdiagnosis and suddenly we start seeing a whole other side to Wally. And March pulls it off well. There's an image of March staring adoringly at Lombard after the firemen come for them. The look on his face and his smile are just amazing. I almost get the feeling that he's not given much room to stretch his acting chops throughout the film.

The fighting scene between Hazel and Wally is absolutely great. Many of the scenes throughout the film start out funny, but aren't developed enough to make them really laugh-out-loud funny. But this fighting scene is fully explored; it turns screwball completely. Hazel is at her wits' end trying to fool the new doctors from figuring out her misdiagnosis when Wally arrives and tries to help her by keeping her temperature up and having her break out in sweats. And how else to do it but by having a good ol' boxing match. The very idea is ridiculous and extreme, especially when he decks her out cold, but with such love too. She gets all worked up and feisty. When she comes to, she returns the favor. It's a great scene that I do no justice by retelling it and has to be seen instead to fully appreciate Lombard and March in their screwy glory.

When I first saw this film years ago, I didn't know why it didn't resonate with me. This time, I had read up a bit on it before viewing so going in I knew the reason why I might not fully enjoy it. Hecht was fired during production, you can read all the drama here. Then four different people were brought in to polish up the dialogue and write an "acceptable ending." This explained loads to me, and why the film seems off. In my opinion, the dialogue isn't as sharp as it should be, and in general the film isn't as ridiculous as it could be. Truth is, there are five different voices, plus the director's voice all talking at the same time.

Visually, I didn't care for the Technicolor. When I first saw this, I thought it had been originally black and white, and was colored in decades later. But no, that wasn't the case. The color palette just doesn't appeal to my eyes. I don't know how else to describe it but it almost has a sleepy look to it for me. It just doesn't compel me to watch, and that's kind of a problem, because I got distracted easily by other things. That being said, pace-wise, the film did go by quickly. It was never dragged out, but I guess overall it was just okay. There wasn't more and I wanted there to be more.

My initial impressions of Nothing Sacred are nothing spectacular, but I recognize that it is a good film overall. It does have some great acting and funny bits here and there. I wish there would have been more high antics, more sharper dialogue, but knowing a bit of the behind-the-scenes history, I think I understand why something seems missing, at least for me. Others find this film to be wonderful, and it certainly has great moments like the fighting scene between Lombard and March. I'm hoping upon closer look I'll discover the true beauty of Nothing Sacred.

Last thoughts on My Man Godfrey

Looking back at My Man Godfrey, there are so many things to love about this film, most of all Carole Lombard. It's a film in which everything seems to fit together just right, everything falls into place, all the jokes are delivered just right, and when the time comes to deliver a message, it does so without it being overbearing. But this film stands apart from other screwball comedies, not just by having sharp dialogue and a great cast, but by being able to incorporate a serious message within a comedy and not make light of it.

Tone and pacing in this film is never a problem. From the very beginning, the simple idea of a scavenger hunt comprising of finding a forgotten man by socialites is absurd and even cruel enough to lead you to realize that things are not what they're supposed to be. William Powell's delivery of Godfrey's lines is done with just the right amount of sarcasm, further indicating the scerwiness of the film. And through all this, the pacing is always at the right pace, never too fast or too slow. At times the pacing might seem a bit too fast, but I think that's the point. It's never too fast that you don't understand what's going on. When Godfrey's on his first day at the Bullocks', the introduction to the family's morning routine can seem dizzying, but in spite of that you can still follow along and get the point that the Bullocks are kind of kooky.

Dialogue can go along with tone, but really the lines throughout this film are great. I think what makes them even greater is how they're delivered. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Morrie Ryskind re-wrote scenes around the actors while on the set, and as I've mentioned this before, this was a wise decision. Using the actors' skills to their advantage allowed them to give better performances. Angelica is much more spacey and Cornelia less devious and more human instead. Being a screwball comedy, naturally the help have the best lines. Molly as the wise-cracking maid of the Bullocks has such great lines. When Godfrey asks Molly what kind of family he's up against with, she replies, "Even some things I can't answer." Much of what's great about Molly isn't just her great lines, but it's the performance by Jean Dixon.

The cast in this film is phenomenal. For the 9th Academy Awards in 1937, the Academy offered awards for supporting roles for the first time, and My Man Godfrey was the first film to get nominations in all the acting categories. While I've raved on about Lombard and Powell, the rest of the cast was equally great in their roles. Dixon as Molly didn't just deliver her lines, it was all in her body movement and facial expressions. You can see that nothing fazes her, but then Godfrey enters and things kinda change for everyone. Alice Brady gives a great performance as well. You can't help but laugh at every single thing that comes out of her mouth. And she does it so well, never breaking out of her role. Her voice shrills as it ends one of her lines but it never really annoys you. And even though these characters are all pretty much standard of the genre, it still shows that you need a strong cast to support your leads. In fact, looking at the genre, the best films have strong supporting roles, some even have ones that steal the whole show. A strong supporting cast is quite important to the success of a film, and here it's able to pull it off wonderfully.

There is one thing that kinda bummed me out about this film, and this has nothing to do with the execution of the film. When I read the whole bit about Powell insisting that Lombard be cast as Irene because she reminded him of Lombard during their marriage, I laughed. But then I thought, well maybe that's why the chemistry is a bit off. I never see the hot chemistry but more of people who are fond of one another. In fact, it took a careful look for me to see the subtle hints that Godfrey falls for Irene, because let's face it, Irene is quite ridiculous. And in the end, when Irene enters Godfrey's place like a twister and sets up a marriage right then and there, Godfrey gives in even though he had been saying up to that point for Irene to go home. And then he gives in. What happened? I wanted them to end up together, so I didn't care. But I looked to see if there was something missing. I suppose it was in the chemistry between Lombard and Powell. I swear Powell just kept remembering why the marriage didn't last, and then it hit me that if Powell and Lombard's marriage ended in divorce, then most likely, so did Godfrey and Irene's. And then I realized that all screwball romances probably do end in divorce. And then we see their stories again as they end up remarrying. But then they probably get divorced again. And all of this just bummed me out, so I stopped thinking about it until now. So I should move on.

My Man Godfrey really did turn out to be a wonderful film. It's my instinct to not like films that purposefully put a message with an attempt at trying to educate in some way. But I'm a firm believer that if you make a film really, really good, and even make it beautiful to look at, and you are able to make me not notice that you're preaching, then all is fair game. I enjoyed this film so much that I didn't care that it had an ulterior motive than just entertainment. I rather appreciated the message as well. But overall, this film stands out the most for the great performances given by the cast and mostly, Carole Lombard.

The screwball comedy queen as the screwball heroine

Of all the actresses to portray a screwball heroine, non have been better than Carole Lombard. I suppose that's relative to everyone's taste. I watched her in another film and completely disliked it and her in the film, and I didn't think that was possible. But in My Man Godfrey, Carole Lombard takes on the role of Irene Bullock and portrays her so convincingly and charming; she embodies Irene completely, with no qualms. You watch her and believe that she's this screwy, but not stupid, heroine who's running around trying to make her protégé fall in love with her, using whatever tricks she's got in her, fake crying and fainting spells alike. But there's a way in which Lombard delivers this performance; another actress would've just made you roll your eyes or walk away from the film. Lombard delivers in a way that makes you, too, fall in love with her.

From the little that I read, William Powell agreed to take on the role of Godfrey only if Lombard was given the role of Irene. And why? Because the relationship between Irene and Godfrey reminded him of his marriage with Lombard, which that in itself explains plenty to me of what I saw as a chemistry issue between the two leads. No doubt they have chemistry, but it's not the red-hot kind. It's almost exactly what I'd expect of a former couple that are still friendly. Whatever the case, it doesn't really matter, because Lombard was the right casting choice, as Powell so very wisely insisted.

What exactly does set her apart? For someone who was 27 at the time of the filming, Lombard plays a woman stunted in a child's mindset quite convincingly. She does it so unashamed. I don't know who else could've pulled it off, jumping up and down on the bed after Godfrey puts her in the shower. Sure many actresses would've jumped, but not with joyous and childlike way in which Lombard does, as if she's trying to reach the ceiling so she bends her knees for height. And then, there are the crying faces. Every single one is done so comically that it makes you laugh. There's no sympathy or empathy evoked here; it is simply and purely for laughs. And then, that her mother falls for it every time just makes it even more enjoyable. There's also something about Lombard's voice. There's a melody to it almost that could turn into a whine, but really Lombard just rambles on her lines and stays so focused on Powell's face the entire time. It is like a child's voice, innocent and naïve. And in fact, looking back on her performance, it is that she pulls off playing a grown child, but a spoiled one.

I try to imagine another actress in the role, and most would be completely wrong for the part. I think Katharine Hepburn would've been close to being good at Irene, but she would've taken the character a totally different way. It wouldn't be Irene the spoiled Park Avenue heiress who wants to sponsor a protégé and falls in love with along the way. Hepburn's Irene would've been more along the lines of Susan Vance, more mischief at play and less crying. With Lombard, there's almost a wide-eyed wonder to Irene, as if she's seeing the world for the first time thanks to Godfrey.

One of the things that I like about Irene, as Lombard portrays her, is how she evolves in the very beginning of the film. The love story between Godfrey and Irene is subtle to me, but I think part of the reason she falls for him is that she sees things differently with him. She never thought about how poor or homeless people live, but now she does. And she's not like the rest of the Park Avenue kids; Irene has a big heart, as she shows when she gives Godfrey money for new things. Godfrey takes on the job of butling and he's her protégé, the one she sponsors, her responsibility. And this makes her believe that she's all grown up now. But she falls for Godfrey and that pretty much stays on her mind for the rest of the film.

Irene is also determined, and smart; she's certainly not stupid. I see how it can be easy to misinterpret a screwball heroine as a stupid. But, these heroines get what they want at the end. They're quite resourceful. Irene won't stop trying to win Godfrey's attention, even if it doing it the only she knows how, by having a crying fit or pretending to pass out. Her way of seeing the world is just different. She's perfectly aware that Cornelia is always trying to wreck her plans with Godfrey by trying to frame him for missing jewelry or complaining about the dangers of hiring homeless people. You can't grow up being Cornelia's sister and not survive that without some survival instincts. Irene just has a funnier way of trying to get her own way. And again, it's more childlike and innocent. She shows indifference, but runs off crying when she sees it doesn't work. But what's great at the end is that Irene, knowing Godfrey left the Bullock house, runs after him. She won't let the fact that he took off without saying goodbye stop her. At another point, she might've cried about it, but she knows he loves her, because he put her in the shower. And the great part here is that she won't take no for an answer. When she gets to his place, she takes a look around and brings in her stuff. When the mayor shows up, well everything's in place for she and Godfrey to get married. And like all screwball heroines, she reassures a confused Godfrey, "it'll all be over in a minute." She gets her man in the end, she gets what she wants and won't take no for an answer.

I really enjoy watching this My Man Godfrey, mostly because of Lombard's performance. I don't even think I can do it any justice describing how well she does it, because really you have to watch it to understand it. I think what's most refreshing is that Lombard is so bold, so unafraid in her performance. Other people would've been more insecure or too exaggerated. Lombard is perfect, she performs naturally. Who cares if in real life she was like Irene. Lombard is a gem in this film and will make you fall in love with her just like Godfrey did.

A scavenger hunt leads to City Dump 32

Looking at the opening sequence, Gregory La Cava does an excellent job with My Man Godfrey in setting up the premise clearly and quickly. There's no lingering about in trying to establish background or worse, dragging things along. Instead we're taken straight to a city dump in which we find William Powell's Godfrey in desperate need of a shower and a good shave. He comes across as angry and cynical, which could be expected of a "forgotten man" who's being asked by a socialite to parade around for a scavenger hunt. But Powell takes a back seat here really, because the one who really shines is Carole Lombard as Irene Bullock. She expresses herself with such naïvety and good-heartedness that you can't help but love her and root for her to beat her snobbish sister, Cornelia, at the scavenger hunt.

As typical of screwball comedies of the Depression, this film shows you right away that it'll be dealing with the differences between classes. When Cornelia all decked out in a gown shows up with Irene trailing her, they stand out amongst the murky city dump, especially standing beside Godfrey. Cornelia's snottiness and upturned nose in contrast to Godfrey's aggravated, working-hard-to-survive attitude shows you right away whose side you really want to be on. Godfrey has great sarcasm here and Cornelia catches on--she's not your typical dimwitted socialite. All the meanwhile, Irene is watching from the sidelines.

Lombard is wonderful in this role. She captures Irene completely as a grown-up girl who hasn't truly grown up. She delights in the fact that Godfrey told off Cornelia, something she's been wanting to do since she was six years old. And for some reason, perhaps the fact that Irene is nothing like Cornelia, Godfrey decides to help Irene beat her sister at the good ol' scavenger hunt. Now, unlike Cornelia, Irene's ingenuity makes her likable in spite of the fact that she is rich. She's clearly not too bright, but it seems more like she's easily distracted, especially by Godfrey. And in the end, while it's not an obvious, in-your-face attraction, Godfrey and Irene are both quite taken by one another. And the two run off together, although it's to the scavenger hunt headquarters.

The ridiculousness of the rich is explained perfectly well by Irene when she breaks down the difference between a treasure hunt and a scavenger hunt. What's great is how transparent the scavenger hunt is. Although it's done in the name of charity, it's pretty apparent that no money will ever be left over to go to the charities. This in itself is a criticism of the time, and it sets up the theme that will be explored in the film. But once at the headquarters, if it hadn't been clear before, it is certainly clear then that things are gonna be screwy. Rich people running amok with animals and unwanted furniture. It's quite ridiculous, as noted by Eugene Pallette's Alexander Bullock. As Angelica Bullock, Alice Brady is wonderful as the ditzy wife, who has great lines like when she tells her daughters that she's only just realizing now that insanity runs on her husband's side. This of course comes after Irene insists that they hire Godfrey as their butler. The entire Bullock clan is introduced here, and the ridiculousness of their lives while "forgotten men" roam the city is showcased well here.

Godfrey continues with great lines; his sarcasm, but dead-on lines hitting right where it counts. While at the end of the scene should be where Irene and Godfrey part, it doesn't quite turn out that way since Irene doesn't want him to go. Once again, what sets her apart here is that she is so different from the rest. While the socialites are mostly offended by Godfrey's criticism, Irene runs after him to apologize, sincerely. And he believes her and accepts it. When Cornelia arrives late with her own forgotten man, she meets eyes with Godfrey. While he hasn't accepted the butler position yet, it seems that Godfrey is almost up to the challenge just to instigate Cornelia. And she grows on the idea as she makes it clear that she hopes he's good at shining shoes.

Right before the scene ends, Irene slips money to Godfrey, quietly, only to have it fall through his holey pocket and onto the floor. It's yet another scene in which Irene shows her good-natured side and makes you like her even more. The funny thing here is that the attraction between Godfrey and Irene is quite subtle. It almost seems as if Godfrey takes the "butling" job more to antagonize Cornelia if anything. But it was good to take this closer look at the opening scene, because I've often watched this film and felt upswept by the ending, which I always took it as that's the point, but even still I wondered where along the lines did Godfrey really fall for Irene, and upon a closer and more careful look, it's subtle, but it's happening from the beginning.

What's clear in My Man Godfrey is that right away this film sets up the theme and premise as well as sets the mood. The two leads are both introduced not just to the audience but to each other within the first scene. There are some great lines all around, and wonderful sarcasm coming courtesy of Godfrey. But amongst all the screwiness of the rich and the bored, there shines Irene who, although acts the role of the clueless socialite, isn't quite like the rest of her kind, and even here in this opening scene she is beginning to change, all thanks to Godfrey.

My Man Godfrey (1936)

I can't even remember when I first watched My Man Godfrey. I've been known to need a Carole Lombard fix from time to time, but this particular film, I feel like I've seen it all my life. That being said, it had been a while since I had last seen it. But it's always so much fun to watch Lombard onscreen! It saddens me that she wasn't able to have a longer career. But I digress. This film makes me giggle. And it's a different kind of funny then say Preston Sturges. I see this and it's all Lombard. William Powell is great in it, and both he and Lombard have just the right chemistry for this film, but if she weren't in the film, it just wouldn't be a classic.

The story is about completely ridiculous people and what's so great about it is that it fits so well today. I appreciated it pre-recession, but to watch it now is even better. The rich Bullock family is so careless about spending and utterly foolish, all the females for being so vapid and the head of the household for not being firm enough with them to stop them dead in their tracks. Godfrey comes in and things soon change. It has the typical characterizations of the rich being stupid and silly, while the poor and working class are the wise ones who have to do some teaching to the privileged. This makes it fun and appealing to the average audience and it's also a staple of the screwball comedy.

Where I saw the film change a bit from others in the genre is in the last act. Godfrey changes the Bullock family and schools them about their money-wasting ways, but in doing this, the film switches from comedy to drama. You do accept that this is happening because you're involved in the story, but it suddenly takes the funny and ridiculousness out of the film and brings it down to earth. Does it get preachy? Yeah, it does. But not in a bad way that you're rolling your eyes at Godfrey, and this is because he genuinely cares for the Bullocks and tells them so. He is humbled enough to tell each one what he's learned from them and how he's a better person for it. In turn, he changes the family in the process.

Thank goodness for Lombard, though, because she brings the screwy back into the film and ends it by telling Godfrey to hold still, "it'll all be over soon," just as they're about to get married, unbeknownst to him it was even gonna happen to begin with. Throughout this film, Lombard epitomizes the true and exact screwball heroine. There was no one and has never been another to beat her out of it. She doesn't just have great comedic timing, but she becomes the character, unabashedly. She acts like a spoiled brat of a child and does it so well, you completely buy it and laugh because Irene Bullock is ridiculous. But you can't help but love her.

As the other lead, Powell is great complement to Lombard. He flashes some great faces and at the same time keeps such a straight face in the midst of hilarity, you laugh along knowing inside he's probably dying to laugh as well. His Godfrey changes throughout the film, from an angry cynical man to one taking action and helping others in need. As for the supporting cast, they're all great, especially Jean Dixon as Molly's, the Bullocks' maid, and Alice Brady as Mrs Angelica Bullock.

There are some great lines throughout and some beautiful dresses worn by the Bullock females. Gregory La Cava puts together a lovely film, and even manages to preach a little without being too overbearing. And while it might not be the exact and perfect screwball comedy, My Man Godfrey is most definitely a worthy film of the genre, most notably for Lombard's performance, which cemented her as the screwball heroine.