The Philadelphia Story represents the Golden Age of Hollywood in every way imaginable: the major celebrities, the high-profile script, the popular director, and the romantic comedy escapism that is hard not to enjoy. What does The Philadelphia Story do that makes you think "classic Hollywood"?
Of course, there's much more to this seemingly simple movie than meets the eye. There are several fine examples of classical lighting, as well as some inventive mise-en-scene that inspires the noir movement (the scene where Connor and Elizabeth are talking to their editor, and how the blinds play into their interaction). All of this is attributed to Golden Age director George Cukor. His nickname was "the woman's director" because of his uncanny ability to direct female actresses - particularly Katherine Hepburn. He also made Adam's Rib, A Star is Born, and My Fair Lady. He's not exactly an "auteur," but is still considered among the finest directors in the history of cinema. Why is Cukor no Alfred Hitchcock, even though his films consistently make Top 10 lists of the best movies ever made?
Pay close attention to the screenplay; while The Philaedelphia Story is a cliched narrative about a spoiled rich girl choosing between two incredibly attractive men, it's also a film with no scene wasted, or any line of dialogue meaningless. Each part relies on the entire story, with just the right balance of reality mixed in with fantasy. The screenwriter and adapter, Donald Ogden Stewart, called the film the "easiest script to write," as the play it was based on was so perfect already. How did you feel about the writing? How does the dialogue, movements, story direction, and character development work together in the script?
However, above all else, there are three main reasons to include The Philadelphia Story on a film syllabus: Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, and Katherine Hepburn. They are three of the Golden Age's most famous actors, and the American Film Institute ranked all three in their greatest stars of all time. Stewart was ranked as the #3 male, Grant the #2 male, and Katherine Hepburn was considered the #1 female actress of all time. How does their charisma play into their characters? Working hand in hand with the script, what does each actor bring to the story that may not have existed if played by someone else (i.e. Jimmy Stewart has a certain expectation in his character)?
Cary Grant had a successful career as one of America's finest dashing action heroes. He was a Hitchcock favorite (along with Jimmy Stewart), and appeared in anything from romantic comedies (Bringing Up Baby, also with Hepburn), to high-speed spy thrillers (North by Northwest). Grant had raw talent and sophistication that worked well for actors in the 1940's.
Another interesting thing to consider about The Philadelphia Story is that it was meant to save Katherine Hepburn's failing career. Despite a promising start, she had become a sort of poison at the box office, and she needed a new picture to revitalize her fame. The Philadelphia Story was the perfect vehicle to do so, so her friend Howard Hughes bought her rights to the play's film adaptation (see The Aviator for more on that story). Hepburn personally hired director George Cukor, and reluctantly accepted the Grant/Stewart match-up when Clark Gable and Spencer Tracey were unavailable.
The Philadelphia Story was the hit Hepburn needed; it was critically and commercially very successful, and it has since landed among several of the top 100 movies of all time. The American Film Institute ranked it as the #5 Best Romantic Comedy. Why do you think it ages so well? What makes this film so universally adored?
One of the aspects of a film's longevity that we haven't had the chance to discuss yet is the Academy Awards. Even today, it's the industry's highest honor, and cements a film's legacy for decades after it's release. With six nominations (including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actress), it won two, including Best Adapted Screenplay. Jimmy Stewart also won his only Oscar (beside an honorary one in 1984) for this film. Do you think he deserved this prestigious honor? Or should it have gone to Cary Grant (who wasn't nominated)?
For Further Reading:
One of the most striking things about this film was the dialogue. It makes sense, since it was written as a play before being adapted into a movie, that the dialogue would have special attention paid to it by the writer. With less stage direction and setting to worry about, the dialogue can shine. I came into this movie expecting a cliche, and I got one, but I was surprisingly enraptured with the movie. The dialogue was quick-witted, funny, and relatable (once I translated the old slang and sensibilities in my head).
ReplyDeleteI found myself rooting for Tracy and connecting with her, and even though she made the "wrong" decision in the end (the decision I didn't like), I still like the ending. It makes sense, but it's unexpected (but perhaps that's because of my modern point of view). That kind of twist is hard to pull off, and I certainly didn't expect it from such an old movie.
I have pretty mixed feelings about this film. The dialogue is excellent. It's fast-paced but easy to follow, funny, and the relationships between the characters really shine through. I think that all of the stars did excellent jobs portraying their respective characters, and their chemistry and charisma have really helped the film age even when the plot itself becomes outdated.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did find myself pulled out of the film a few times by plot points that didn't age so well. Tracy's father tells her that she needs to learn to be more forgiving, and the ending of the film certainly implies that Tracy just needed to lower her impossible standards to be happy with her father and Dexter. However, the film opens with him going to hit her and the deciding just to shove her onto the floor instead. It's repeatedly stated that he has trouble with alcoholism, and that their entire marriage wasn't thought through very well. Tracy's father cheated on her mother very publicly, which is not only unethical in terms of his marriage, but also puts his entire family at risk of public humiliation. Alcoholism, domestic abuse, and cheating are not necessarily minor flaws that one should automatically overlook. As much as I otherwise loved the film, I might have bought that Tracy held others to impossible standards better had their flaws been a bit more minor.
The interplay between the dialogue and the shots really struck me as an interesting way to develop the story and further the plot. I thought that the shots helped set up character relationships throughout the movie and that it's role in conjunction with the dialogue really drove this home. This is especially seen in the clip where Tracy, Dexter, Tracy's mother, and her sister are all in the same continuous shot, showing that they are all close, almost still a family.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this movie feels like the classic romantic comedy, mostly because it is. It's transition from the stage to film is extremely evident in how dialogue based the plot is. I enjoyed this movie because traces of it can be seen in pretty much every romantic comedy produced after, especially in relation to its dialogue and shot usage.
I really enjoyed this film. I honestly did get pretty annoyed with Hepburn's character. She was very over dramatic and I do understand that is how the acting was during those dates, but it was kind of hard to watch at some points. How her words were drawn out gave made me think she was just obnoxious and not what the men thought she was. All in all though, I did appreciate the plot and how she was between men. It was fascinating because in my mind, I thought the plot was a bit progressive for those times.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Dexter was a very odd, awkward character at some points. His facial expressions were sometimes immature and he thought of himself as sly, until Tracy unveiled what he was up to. In the end, I grew to like Dexter the best out of all the characters since he was sort of comical about everything that came his way.
-Alicya Simmons
I enjoyed watching this film. The dialogue was witty, the actors and actresses were charismatic and the plot was engaging. It was wholly representative of the classic Hollywood movie, a the heart-wrenching romantic plot of the dashing hero and beautiful heroine.
ReplyDeleteWhile the film's direction and plot were not novel concepts, reasons for its popularity is simply because it is a crowd-pleaser. It was made mainly for pure entertainment, and the box office sales show that it was successful in that. The composition of the film was meant to be aesthetically pleasing, whether it is the costumes that actress wore or the beautiful American landscape shown in the film. It is universally adored because its selling point is that it is charismatic to the audience.
I enjoyed this firm very much - I have always thoroughly enjoyed romantic films. As others have mentioned, dialogue dominated. This movie was very to follow -- it is interesting that it took place all within the elite class and the love triangle with very compelling as each character had distinctive personalities. Usually, we see a rich man as the "loser" in films, while the hungry and ambitious "less well off" man as seen as the winner. One can look to Titanic to see this as a classic example. Americans love to see the underdogs win - seeing the elite win can get boring and lose the thrill in the eyes of audience. While Dexter had his flaws, he (one can only hope) seemed to mature and figure out that something really matters when it you simply don't have it anymore. George seemed to try desperately to learn the values/manners of the upper class -- and seemed to not thrill Tracy as the movie progressed. While serious and thought-provoking, the film was very funny and entertaining as a whole.
ReplyDelete- Conor