by Judy Geater
This is a film that has its wedding cake and eats it. James Stewart sums it all up beautifully in two caustic lines – on the one hand: “The prettiest sight in this fine, pretty world is the privileged class enjoying its privileges.” That’s certainly a big selling point for a movie set in an impossibly luxurious mansion on the eve of a grand wedding, amid a whirl of champagne and gowns by Adrian. But, on the other hand, as Stewart snarls on the phone: “This is the Voice of Doom calling. Your days are numbered, to the seventh son of the seventh son.” The Philadelphia Story, one of the greatest of screwball comedies, celebrates the quirkiness of rich society families, as epitomised in Katharine Hepburn’s haughty, upper-crust heroine, Tracy Samantha Lord. But it also suggests that their days are indeed numbered, and shows this American aristocrat having to change and bend with the times.
The opening scene is a brief silent drama which shows Tracy’s violent break-up with her husband, CK Dexter Haven (Cary Grant), as she contemptuously breaks his golf clubs and he retaliates by pushing her through a door, deciding against hitting her. From this dramatic break-up, it’s a case of going full circle and getting back to the point where the couple fall in love. Just as Tracy is about to marry a safe but boring businessman, George Kittredge (John Howard), Dexter turns up at the eleventh hour and starts turning everything upside down. He brings in a reporter and photographer from a gossip magazine, Spy, (he has been blackmailed into doing so) and things are soon becoming more complicated, and comic, by the minute. It turns out that the reporter, Macaulay/Mike Connor (Stewart) is really a poetic short story writer, and Tracy starts to fall under his spell, threatening her forthcoming marriage – while the rest of her eccentric family are busy causing their own brand of mayhem.
Extra-marital affairs might have been frowned on under the restrictions of the Hays Code. But Hollywood had ways of smuggling in forbidden material – and one of those ways was the comedy of remarriage, which allowed a couple to divorce, romance others and then, inevitably, get back together again. Two of the greatest movies in this vein were both made in the same year, 1940, both starring Cary Grant as the ex-husband who steps in on the eve of his ex-wife’s second wedding. In His Girl Friday he’s the newspaper editor who won’t let reporter Rosalind Russell escape his clutches. The dialogue might be delivered a little more slowly in Cukor’s screwball great than in Hawks’s, but it is every bit as sharp, with endless lines to take away and savour. It’s easy to see why it was such a smash hit, especially with the added ingredient of James Stewart as the other man who also falls for Hepburn’s charms, and who gets some of the best lines
Like her character in this film, Hepburn was herself having to change her image, after a succession of flops led to her being labelled ‘box-office poison’ . Some of these are now recognised as great films, including Hawks’s Bringing Up Baby, but the audience failed to warm to Hepburn, who was reportedly seen as too perfect. So Hepburn went back to the Broadway stage and starred in a play written with her in mind, The Philadelphia Story by Philip Barry, before then managing to get the rights for the film adaptation and re-creating the role on screen. The film, scripted by Donald Ogden Stewart, succeeded in softening Hepburn’s screen personality, as it shows Tracy coming down off her pedestal, rejecting descriptions of herself as a ‘goddess’ or ‘queen’ and insisting at the end ‘I feel like a human being’.
But the film has its cake and eats it here too, because Hepburn is of course a beautiful movie ‘goddess’ in this, and some of the most memorable scenes are those where she is at her most triumphantly upper-crust and insouciant. Director Peter Bogdanovich has an interesting piece about the film on his blog where he says that he finds it a hard film to love because of the insistence on cutting Hepburn down to size and making her eat humble pie. I would have to agree this layer of sexism is a troubling element, with shades of The Taming of the Shrew. It would be nice to see Grant’s character having to give a little more too – and yet, somehow the impression Hepburn gives at the end of the film, despite all the changes she has been forced to make, is not humble at all.
I suppose it could be argued that Dexter’s own big change has been made between that opening scene and the main part of the film, during the space of the title card ‘Two years later’. The reason given for his break-up with Tracy is not one of the usual screwball comedy misunderstandings, but a surprising touch of reality. She threw him out for his drink problem and he has since been drying out in ‘a couple of sanitariums for alcoholics’. Tracy gets the blame for his drinking – he suggests that her coldness drove him to the bottle and also accuses her of failing to be a “helpmate” in beating the problem. (Ludicrously, she is even blamed for her parents’ break-up – apparently her father was tempted to have affairs with dancers because his daughter was so judgmental and failed to worship him enough!) All this is pretty hard to take, but the couple’s warmth and affection, and all the banter between them, as they call each other ‘Red’ and ‘Dex’, makes their relationship enjoyable to watch despite it all. And Grant is great as always at creating a character with an urbane surface but hints of complicated layers below. As Stewart says to him: “CK Dexter Haven, you have unsuspected depth.”
One of the joys of this film is its wonderful cast. Hepburn, Grant and Stewart all play against each other brilliantly, and Ruth Hussey is also great, filling out the somewhat underwritten role of Liz, the photographer watching over and yearning for Mike. There are also fine supporting performances, in particular from Roland Young as Uncle Willie and Virginia Weidler as Tracy’s younger sister Dinah. Looking at how well the whole cast works together, it is rather surprising to realise that Grant and Stewart were both second choices. On stage, Joseph Cotten played Dex, with Van Heflin as Mike and Shirley Booth as Liz. When the film was being cast, Hepburn initially asked for Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy – they didn’t know each other yet, but she wanted to work with him. Both of them were unavailable, so Grant and Stewart were cast. It’s interesting to speculate on how Gable and Tracy would have altered the roles, but it’s impossible to imagine anybody could have been better than Grant and Stewart. Having said this, I do find it rather odd that Stewart won the Oscar for best actor, something he himself saw as a consolation prize for losing out the previous year in Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Yes, he’s great in this too, but it is surely Hepburn’s film all the way, and if one of the leads had to receive an Oscar, it should have been her.
HOW THE PHILADELPHIA STORY MADE THE TOP 100:
#6 R.D. Finch
#10 Pierre De Plume
#13 Brandie Ashe
#22 Allan Fish
#22 Bobby Jopsson
#35 Jon Warner
#45 Rod Heath
#53 Ed Howard
#54 Bill Riley
#57 Dennis Polifroni
Judy, this is one of my very favorite screwball comedies. I think it’s especially strong in the way it takes the classic situation of the genre–couple breaks up for silly reasons, usually the difficulty of two big egos getting along, decide to take on new mates who are unsuitably dull, and by the machinations of one of the couple find they really are right for each other and fall in love all over again–and concentrates on developing the characters rather than the situations. I certainly agree that one of the great joys of the film, aside from its incomparable cast, is that great dialogue. Its quality points to the film’s origins as a play, but little else in it does, so thoroughly has Cukor turned this into a movie experience. This IS Hepburn’s movie all the way, and of all her wonderful performances, this is my favorite. I don’t have problems with the film’s judgmental attitude toward Tracy because I figure C.K. has already done his own penance in getting his drinking problem under control and now it’s time for Tracy to work on her problems, the greatest of which is that she prefers the sterility of perfection to the unpredictability of human frailty. It’s a movie I can watch again and again. It took me a couple of viewings to realize how good Stewart is and a couple more to see how good Grant is. The scene where the drunk Stewart visits Grant after the party and gets the hiccups always has me in stitches even as I marvel at their perfect comic timing.
R.D., I like your description of the film taking the classic situation of the screwball break-up and concentrating on developing the characters rather than the situations. And I do agree that Cukor has done a great job in turning the stage play into a movie with no hint of staginess – I should really have said more here about Cukor, who is a great director yet doesn’t seem to have the ‘auteur’ touches which are easy to spot. His main trademark seems to be the put the focus firmly on the actors, as he does here with Hepburn. To me, the problem with saying that Dexter has done his own penance already is that he blames Tracy for his drink problem – but, yes, he has also made changes, and it is satisfying to see the couple come back together at the end in a relationship where they accept each other without setting impossible standards of perfection. Thanks very much for the great and stimulating comment!
While I agree that Cukor can’t be characterized as an auteur, I do believe that his work can be described as strongly elegant – or elegantly strong. His stuff certainly had a way about it if not a unique, signature component.
That’s a great description of Cukor’s work, Pierre. He is someone who gradually crept up on me as a favourite director, as I realised how many of his films I’d seen and loved.
Good point about Stewart….who didn’t often get much credit for comedic acting and I think he’s great here and shows a side of himself that doesn’t come out too often….in Harvey too.
Judy, this is an excellent piece on a film I placed in my top 10 as I recall. For me, everything comes together. Even though the material is adapted from the play, this is cinematically expert with Cukor’s gifts showing throughout. I don’t have any problem with Hepburn’s Lord character getting cut down to size; I simply feel that she goes through a humanization process before our eyes in a way parallel to what Grant’s character has apparently experienced after their divorce. In other words, he became a man and she becomes a woman, setting the stage for reunion. Stewart is the catalyst that makes this possible. Though good, I too feel this was a “make-up” Oscar for him. This is one of Hepburn’s best roles (with Long Day’s Journey occupying the dramatic end of things).
Thanks for the great read!
Pierre, thank you very much – I didn’t vote, but this film would get a high ranking from me too. That ‘humanization process’ certainly worked well for Hepburn in terms of making the audience fall in love with her again. I do love Stewart in this, even though i think he got the Oscar for the wrong film, and it is interesting to see a film where the heroine spends so much time falling under the spell of another man before going back to her first love – in a way he romances her on behalf of Grant. And I agree this is one of Hepburn’s best roles – I do have quite a few of her films still to see, which I’m looking forward to. Thank you very much!
Judy, if you haven’t seen these – some of them lesser known – I recommend:
Morning Glory (breakthrough), Sylvia Scarlett (tomboy), Alice Adams (flawed but somehow sympathetic), Quality Street (period), Bringing Up Baby (great comedic lightness), Stage Door (transformation), The African Queen (great relationship w/Bogart), Long Day’s Journey Into Night (rare self-destructiveness), Suddenly Last Summer (unsympathetic), and the TV movie Love Among the Ruins (exquisite, also directed by Cukor, with Olivier).
Thanks very much for the recommendations, Pierre, I’ve seen some of these – I love ‘The African Queen’ and ‘Stage Door’ in particular – and have ‘Sylvia Scarlett’ waiting to see this week, but there are others you have mentioned here that I still need to catch up with, and I will be straight over to my DVD club to check what titles I can add to my list there. I have seen all her films with Tracy and my favourite out of those is ‘Adam’s Rib’, but I also like ‘Desk Set’ a lot, and ‘Sea of Grass’ and ‘Without Love’, which I think both tend to be underrated.
Oh what about Summertime? That’s a great one too and one of her best.
Yes – Kate is great in Summertime – a classic performance of an undernourished middle-aged woman transforming before our eyes through romantic love . . . in Venice no less with David Lean at the helm and Rossano Brazzi dressing up the scenery.
Yep that one would make my list of the great romance films…..
I haven’t seen this one, but definitely must do so. Thanks very much, Pierre and Jon!
Great stuff Judy. I love this film through and through and put it on my ballot. Individually I love Hepburn, Grant, and Stewart and seeing them all together and playing off of each other is a real treat. I think all their performances are very endearing. I also love that younger sister Dinah. She’s a real hoot. There’s that wonderfully romantic scene where Stewart and Hepburn are outside on the lawn at night and they’re drunk…that’s such a terrific cinematic moment for the two of them. I could watch that scene right now.
Glad you highlighted Hepburn’s Oscar-worthy-ness here and this film is probably in my top 2 or 3 as far as her performances go. She is so much fun to watch here.
Yes, that is a great scene on the lawn and agreed on Dinah, who is wonderful – love her playing the piano. It’s a treat to have the three great stars working together, as you say, and a lot of fun. Thanks very much, Jon!
Fantastic post on one of my favorite comedies–favorite films, period–of all time, and as I recall, it was pretty far up on my ballot. Part of the reason for that is the way it delicately balances some pretty uncomfortable themes–Dexter’s alcoholism, the leashed violence in that nonetheless brutally funny opening scene, the class conflicts boiling under the surface, the inherent misogyny in Mr. Lord’s judgment of Tracy’s behavior–with a sometimes caustic wit and just the right touch of romantic tension. I’m glad you highlighted the supporting cast, because as wonderful as the three leads are, most of the others shine just as brightly. I love Weidler’s performance as Dinah–she was one of the best young scene stealers during that period of time in Hollywood (she’s also a highlight of THE WOMEN, to me). It’s a shame she “retired” from the screen at 17–I, for one, would have loved to have seen what she could do as an adult. And though Hussey’s role as Liz is, as you rightly state, underwritten, she is nonetheless one of my favorite things about this movie. Her banter with Stewart never fails to crack me up. I’ll throw in a mention of Mary Nash, who plays Tracy’s mother–it’s a rather thankless role, but she’s the perfect picture of the dithering society matron.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughts on this film, Judy!
Thank you very much, Brandie. I think you sum up the difficult mix of elements in the film perfectly here – all of which work together to create a great movie which repays repeated viewing. It’s a while since I’ve seen ‘The Women’, but I do remember that Weidler is good in it – as you say, a shame she didn’t carry on acting as an adult. I do like Hussey but it is an uncomfortable moment for me when she has Stewart handed back to her a minute after his rejected proposal, rather like the supporting cast in Shakespeare comedies who are married off in the multiple weddings at the end of the play!
Judy -
An excellent, comprehensive overview. I have to admit that I admire and like THE PHILADELPHIA STORY for its wit and the great acting. But I don’t love it , for many reasons that you’ve touched on here – mainly for the punitive attitude it takes toward Tracy Lord/Katherine Hepburn. (I’m not even sure if it ended up on my ballot – or, if so, where.) And, like you, I’ve always been puzzled that this, of all Jimmy Stewart’s film roles, should have been his Oscar win, but then that’s the screwy way of the Academy, not the first and certainly not the last time it handed out a belated, consolatory prize.
Pat, I do find the punitive attitude towards Hepburn’s character brings me up short at times, and yet I love the film all the same, for its wit and sharp script and great cast, as you say, and I’m also increasingly finding that Cukor always draws me in as a director. It does seem odd that Stewart won for this rather than for one of his more celebrated roles, but I agree with you that there have been plenty of consolation prizes for the wrong film – Bette Davis in ‘Dangerous’ after she lost out on ‘Of Human Bondage’ being one that immediately springs to mind. Thanks so much!
Pat, I am not sure what is happening with the tabulation, but it does appear that it may have run it’s course with the person who formally volunteered to do it. I completely understand how demanding it is to compile these placements and in behalf of the site I expressed my appreciation for what he has done to this point.
Sam – Oh, I understand, and my commnet here was not in any way meant as a complaint. I only meant to express that I wasn’t even sure I had voted for this film because I didn’t really love it.
Oh absolutely Pat, I understood you weren’t lodging a complaint. In any case, the tabulation is back and will continue till the conclusion I am told. This is good news.
Judy, I do like this film for a host of reasons (most wonderfully framed by you in this extraordinary essay) but I guess not as much as others, since I left it off my ballot. That was a most interesting issue you broach for Bogdonovich’s blog, and I do see the worthiness of it. Hepburn as tracy lord gives one of her greatest screen portrayals in the film (to sit alongside THE LION IN WINTER, BRINGING UP BABY, ALICE ADAMS, THE AFRICAN QUEEN and LONG DAY’S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT) and she stands tallest in an otherwise exceptional cast. Yes I do absolutely agree that Stewart won his Oscar in consolation for losing in the remarkable lead acting year of 1939, when Robert Donat won, but Laurence Olivier and Clark Gable were in an astonishing line-up. The cast really trancends the material and there’s a snapping rhythm and pase to the delivery of the lines that make the film a scintillating watch. Cukor was a master at transforming stage material into fluid cinema, and for most this is a prime example.
Terrific piece here Judy!
Sam, thanks for reminding me about Bogdanovich’s blog (the wonderfully named Blogdanovich!) – I had meant to add a link to his piece on this film and will do so now:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/peterbogdanovich/the_philadelphia_story
I think he is rather hard on the film, but it is an interesting argument and he does trace how Hepburn’s character is cut down to size – although, as I’ve tried to say in my piece, I think this actually cuts both ways, since she is so gloriously confident as an actress in it.
I love your comment here about Cukor ‘transforming stage material into fluid cinema’, and also agree with you about the amazing line-up of lead actors in 1939. Thank you very much, Sam!
Terrific post Judy! I’m am in the same boast as Pat. I like this film but it is not one that I love. I am not even sure why. The acting is terrific and the script is sharply written. yet I can noever warm up to it.
Well, we can’t all love the same films, John, but it sounds as if you appreciate its qualities anyway. Thanks for the nice comment.
Terrific cast in this movie, although I’m another one who doesn’t rank this in my Top 10. You make a good point about the censors and getting around adultery with a divorce and re-marriage. Great post!
Thank you very much – totally agree that this has a terrific cast! Interesting just how much film adultery did really get in under the code, even if it was hedged around with marriage plots.
Bonjour à vous ! Avez vous démarché une agence marketing pour le référencement google ?