A different kind of Godfrey and Irene

Recently, I read the screenplay of My Man Godfrey, which had various dates throughout April 1936, and I have to say that I'm so glad that the film turned out to be different from the script. The characters come across different and some of the scenes just aren't as funny. I had read previously to reading the screenplay that screenwriter Morrie Ryskind had pretty much improvised and re-wrote scenes while on the set, which obviously explains the difference between film and script. Even still I hadn't expected the differences of what looks like to me as a working draft and in essence, I guess that's what it was.

There's a good article over at TCM that talks about the film's production. Apparently, Ryskind worked with Gregory La Cava and the actors to mold the characters around them, which turned out to be brilliant because then the characters were tailored for the actors and their fortés. This is especially true of the two leads. On paper, Irene and Godfrey aren't that compelling. Irene is your average spoiled brat who is referred to as being "dumb. I mean really dumb." And on screen, this isn't true at all. Irene's got some smarts in her; she has to being Cornelia's sister. And this is something that is a bit of a contradiction in the script because sometimes she does things like run after Godfrey trying to prevent Cornelia from doing something awful to Godfrey, but then people tell Irene that she's slow or not smart, and she believes this. It just doesn't play well, because none of this motivates Irene to show people she's really smart. She just takes it and this doesn't allow for Irene to stand out or want you to root for her. She even claims to get engaged because Godfrey told her to do it, not like in the film in which she uses the engagement as a spur of the moment thing to get Godfrey jealous. The engagement in the script implies that Irene proposes to her soon-to-be fiancé beforehand, probably as a ploy, but it's premeditated. In short, there's the seed of what Irene turned out to be in the film, and had I not known that Ryskind was on set re-writing scenes, I would've assumed Carole Lombard had improvised a good chunk of Irene.

Then there's Godfrey, who is perhaps the most different in my opinion. The Godfrey in the screenplay comes across as a younger guy, who shows more of his emotions. Unlike the film's Godfrey, who is more reserved and seems almost unbothered by the Bullocks' antics, in the screenplay, Godfrey is frequently embarrassed by Irene, and Cornelia as well, fawning at him. Although, any fawning by Cornelia comes with ulterior motives. In the film, Godfrey is too smart for Cornelia's games. If he's willing to take the bait, it's with caution. But what's most striking about Godfrey is that you never see any remote interest in Irene. Yet, when she's engaged and the two talk about it, Godfrey gets so upset. Any attempt by Irene to tell him how she feels is met with Godfrey balking at her, almost bitterly. So you read that and you're like, okay he likes her ... but why and when did it happen? For the most part, Godfrey seems to want to do good and right by the Bullocks, but he just doesn't seem as interesting. Part of Godfrey's charm in the film is that he is obviously much wiser and more sane than any of the Bullocks. In the screenplay, he's just not quite there. Making Godfrey older was a wise decision because it makes his actions more credible and Godfrey himself becomes more self-secure. He knows who he is, so there's no need for embarrassment or worries about his family in Boston because Godfrey is more concerned about helping the people in the city dump and also the Bullocks, who gave him a job when jobs were scarce. In fact, a younger Godfrey couldn't deliver the wonderful speech he gives in the end. It's more like fragments of what you see in the film. A much bigger speech is given by Bullock himself, actually, but it carries on too long and almost seems to go around in circles. An older Godfrey, is more credible in giving that moving speech to the Bullocks that moves them to tears in the end.

While there are some minor differences throughout the screenplay, there are also major ones. A big one is the last part of the script. Imagine the film without a dripping-wet Lombard jumping up and down on the bed and shouting, "Godfrey loves me! Godfrey loves me!" The shower scene just isn't funny in the screenplay; it just isn't exaggerated to the point as it is the film. Irene realizes Godfrey's about to put her in the shower and she gets upset but claims to still love him. And then everyone finds out and is outraged by it, as if he had deflowered her, which I think is the point, but it misses its effect. Before all this, there's a scene that isn't shown in the film. There's no going away to Europe. Instead, the story continues and Cornelia kind of comes to Godfrey and sets up a meeting with him for later in the evening. Irene finds out and begs him not to go, has another fainting spell, but Godfrey goes anyway. Cornelia pretty much threatens to ruin the Parkes' name but in the meantime, Irene has arrived outside of where Godfrey and Cornelia are meeting and she sets up a rally of sorts in which street-goers all shout "We want Godfrey!" It's quite bizarre, but almost seems contrived to get Godfrey out of the Bullocks' house only to be forced by the police to go back with Irene in order to bring peace to the streets of New York. Why not just keep them in the Bullock house? And it just seems pointless, more of a biography lesson in which Cornelia retells all she's learned about Godfrey's family. So now we understand how important Godfrey and his family really are. But it does nothing for the story. The removal of this bit was wise. We already know Cornelia is determined and mean-spirited so this does nothing new.

Even though I didn't enjoy the story as the screenplay told it, it was good to see the differences, especially knowing a bit about the production background. I think this screenplay can definitely be seen as a working draft, and to compare the screenplay with the film it's neat to see the change in storyline and characters. It's not a major overhaul, but the changes wer just right and necessary. And knowing the production history, it's also interesting to note the importance of collaboration in a film and to see how well it worked in My Man Godfrey.

Screwball Dramedy?

Something interesting about My Man Godfrey that sets it apart from other screwball comedies, is the turn of events that comes near the end of the film. Everybody is crying, and not Carole-Lombard-as-Irene crying, but genuinely sad crying, touched by Godfrey's actions. The film almost gets a bit Capraesque. The change of tone seems a bit strange, but if you consider the film, the year it was released, and certainly the views on the current state of affairs at the time, I suppose it's not so strange. But, it kinda does get preachy. Not that it isn't deserved, it just isn't what I'd think you'd find in a screwball comedy.

This moral lesson you find in the film isn't something that has ever bothered me before, it still doesn't because I'm enjoying the film so much that I don't care if it's trying to get a message across to me. I'm involved. But, is this a true screwball comedy then? It's an interesting thought that I've been pondering on.

The film has all the pre-requisites, if you will, of all films in the genre. There are two leads who are opposites, there's a screwball heroine, there's a rapid pace throughout, there's witty dialogue, misunderstandings, the working class always outwitting the privileged. The only thing missing really is cross-dressing and perhaps slapstick pranks. But I think the Bullocks' behavior kind of outweighs the need for slapstick humor. In fact, the Bullocks are so ridiculous and their lives are completely hilarious, that that in itself qualifies it alone as a film of the genre. But in portraying the Bullocks, the film isn't just making fun of the upper class; this film is a criticism of the rich, their lifestyle, and the effects on the working-class, the poor.

There are probably several reasons why the writers/director chose to go this path of criticism, from the theme of the film to the audience. But whatever the reason, the film works, mostly because of the way they chose to tell the story. In Godfrey, there's a character who isn't just a forgotten man they happen to hire, as much as the Bullocks all believe it to be so, Godfrey happens to be just like them and was mistaken for a forgotten man. But what sets Godfrey apart is that he's completely bitter at the beginning of the film. He is disgusted by the scavenger hunt and lets everyone know. But he needs a job and when Irene offers him one, he takes it. This is when his transformation begins.

Godfrey doesn't explain until halfway through the film who he really is, and then later on, how he plans to help the dwellers of the city dump he was staying at in the beginning of the film. In these dwellers, he sees a determination to survive in spite of the odds. He sees hard-working people who all happen to be men in the film, but in reality, there were probably women and children there as well. What this film does is address the reality that everyone, especially film-goers, was facing at the time. And with it, the film sends out a message of hope.

When the Bullocks meet together near the end of the film, Alexander Bullock announces they're broke. Godfrey takes this opportunity to tell them that he basically saw the financial ruin coming and helped them out, all with the help of the pearl necklace Cornelia planted in his room in hope of getting him fired. Godfrey returns the necklace and delivers the stocks he bought from Bullock's company, and why? Because he wanted to help them the same way they helped him too. He learned a lot from them. He then continues with what he's learned from each of them and by the end of the speech, everyone is crying. The only thing that saves this scene is Alice Brady, who doesn't just have great lines, but delivers them impeccably. And by save, I mean save it from getting depressing or worse, completely leaving you with mixed feelings.

I must say that this speech changes the tone completely. I think part of what makes a screwball comedy is that you do have these stereotypical characters, and to watch them become human, it kinda takes you away from the whole flightiness of the film and makes it very real. I suspect the writers felt they needed to bring it down to reality, but they did so in a way in which, thanks to Angelica Bullock and her high-pitched voice, there's still some humor to it. The film would probably still work without the whole save-the-Bullocks subplot, but I suppose it makes Godfrey more real, more likable, more human.

So is My Man Godfrey a screwball comedy? Could it be a screwball dramedy instead? I think, the film is a straight screwball comedy, but then it throws you for a curveball at the end when you hear Godfrey's speech. You can call it whatever you want really. It's not a typical film of the genre, but I suppose part of the charm of screwballs is that anything can happen. The best thing that is done is that it ends in such a screwy way that leaves you laughing. The pace is quickened once again and before you know it, Godfrey and Irene are about to say "I do." So does it matter that the film gets preachy? Not really, because it's a fantastic film that you'll want to watch over and over again.