by Dennis Polifroni
(USA 1934 70m) DVD
p William le Baron d Norman Z. McLeod w Jack Cunningham story W.C.Fields,
J. P. McEvoy ph Henry Sharp art Hans Dreier, John B.Goodman
W.C. Fields (Harold Bissonette), Kathleen Howard (Amelia Bissonette), Jean Rouverol (Mildred Bissonette), Julian Madison (John Durston), Tommy Bupp (Norman Bissonette), Baby le Roy (Baby Ellwood Dunk), Charles Sellon (Mr Muckle), Tammany Young (Everett Hicks), Morgan Wallace (Jasper Fitchmueller), Josephine Whittell (Mrs Dunk), T.Roy Barnes (salesman)
There is a deep, almost personal connection I have with the work of W. C. Fields. Unlike the Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy, The Stooges, yeah, even my beloved Chaplin, Fields holds a special place in my heart. To me, he’s more connective, speaks to me directly, and comes off as a real person.
My father, the greatest guy I ever knew (and know), is the toughest man I ever met. Standing up at a height of 6-feet 5-inches and built like a stone statue of a Greek god, he is the very essence, even at his current age (70), of what the ideal male form is. In his working life, he pounded steel with a hammer and blow-torch, carried and fused miles and miles of electric cables up hundreds of flights, over-hauled cars and created and monitored a thriving restaurant through years of sweat and determination. My father was a rock. He worked long hours, never missed a days work and, through thick and thin, ALWAYS provided for his family. He was a dreamer as well. After years of physical labor he saw his dreams of owning his own business (the aforementioned restaurant) come to fruition and he struggled every day that he oversaw his business to make it the rousing success it is still remembered as. Even when he retired he dreamt. Florida was always on his mind. An avid golfer and a lover of athletics, my father dreamt of a simple place in the sunshine state, overlooking green grass and bodies of moving water, that he could nestle into and live out the rest of his days in fresh air and peace.
However, with every dream he had, whether a business venture or a focus on his ideal retirement, he always encountered an obstacle.
Enter my fathers wife or, as we refer to her, “Big Shirl”.
My mother (now 71 years old) is a 5-foot 7-inch tall, 125 pound whirl-wind of shrill, screaming, emotionally high-strung nerves that rushes into a room like a hurricane. If you got up from your bed to use the bathroom at any given time of the day you could usually count on the bed being made by the time you got back. Always cleaning, wiping, vacuuming or polishing something, there was order in HER house and she made NO apologies if she commanded you out of it in order to maintain that plowed-field-groove in the fibers of her beloved carpeting after running her “electric-broom” over it. She was, and still is, loud, confrontational, accusing and, worst of all, the stone that fell on our heads every time we had a dream or an idea of something better in the future. My mother is dug into her environment, loves organization and order (one of her most frightening attributes that I have, unfortunately, inherited) and will only consider something reaching past her comfortable norm if SHE’s the one that thought it up.
To my mother, my father is just a bumbling and puttering “pain-in-the-ass” who can never “just sit still”. To her, my fathers dreams of betterment meant, and mean, the disruption of organization and order in both HER home and HER life.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I LOVE my mother dearly. However, in all the years I lived in that house with the two of them (on and off for the first 14 years of my life as I was ping-ponging back-and-forth to my grandparents place while my parents also balanced jobs and my father built his restaurant business, permanently afterwards), I don’t ever recall my father having a conversation with my mother that didn’t end with the words: “That man needs serious help” or “I think he’s on drugs”. To my mother, anything outside of HER status-quota meant upheaval and trouble and it wasn’t until my father presented my mother with the current home they live in (completely renovated, fully and newly furnished, and without so much as asking her to lift a finger to help in its preparation) that she finally conceded in stating that his years of hard work and dreaming FINALLY saw a pay-off worthy of her praise.
Now, what does all of this have to do with my love for the films of W. C. Fields?
Well, think about it.
In just about EVERY Fields film, the comic writer and performer is a man just like my father. Only ever wanting to be left alone to do his dreaming (although taking comfort in an open bottle was not in my father’s regimen as it is with Fields), he’s a guy who goes to work every day, makes what he thinks is the best for every situation and always looks to the future for a better and more comfortable way to live out the rest of his life. Like my parents, Fields is usually besieged by an insurmountable obstacle and that obstacle is usually his wife.
IT’S A GIFT (1934) is, arguably, Fields tour-de-force. At 71 minutes of running time, it’s the comic genius’ shot at the stadium seats. Tight, with never a frame wasted, it’s Fields opus on failure and misunderstanding, coincidence and arms thrown in the air as forced up by defeat. It’s a mirror image of many a marriage where the husband bows his head to the consternation of the better thinking “other half”.
Harold Bissonette, as played by Fields, is a simple general/grocery store owner trying as hard as he can to etch out a meager existence without having people break his balls. Sleepy, almost catatonic, he’s a man who’s consistently berated and chewed up by his wife, kids and neighbors. Because of his simple nature, he is the target of strong willed personalities. Muttering under his breath, he has answers for most of the questions but is seen as such a bumbling idiot that he nary gets a chance to speak up and make his position on matters known. At the grocery store, he’s often yelled at by impatient customers wanting what he doesn’t have (Kumguats, a tropical fruit, being the most desired item) and too intimidated by to tell his patrons he’s short of. In one of the funniest moments of the film, Bissonette tries his earnest to gently wrangle Mr. Muckle (an hysterical Charles Sellon), a deaf AND blind man, to a chair in order to keep the agitated cripple from destroying a display of lightbulbs as he wraps a stick of chewing gum. As one of the first funny bits of the movie, Fields effortlessly and simply defines the good intentions of the character while all the time expressing exasperation and floating the question of why he’s even involved in a business he’s so ill prepared to monitor. A baby (Baby Leroy) upends a barrel of molasses and effectively destroys the floors of the store. His clerk runs him down with the delivery bicycle and, by the end of the sequence, sees just about every window of the place broken or smashed. Yet, through it all, Fields maintains an aire of complete amazement as he fathoms how any of this could even happen in the first place because he’s such a good natured soul.
Back at home, Bissonette is ripped to shreds by everyone endowed with a tongue. His son (a perfectly precocious Tommy Bupp), is often seen laughing at him during a tongue lashing from his mother and regularly leaves the errant roller-skate in just the right place to see his father trip over and somersault into the dining room from (that gag is so off-the-wall perfect that I find myself laughing uncontrollably every time I see it, and I’ve seen this film over 50 times). His daughter (the romantically angst-ridden Jean Rouverol) has no problems with leveling her father every time he mentions the idea of moving her to another state away from her beloved boyfriend (the always smiling Julian Madison) and has a penchant for surprising her father in the bathroom as he navigates his throat with a straight-razor (“keep it up if you want me to slit my throat!”). The neighbor lady, Mrs. Dunk (the annoyingly monotone Josephine Whittell), can’t seem to keep her voice down as he sleeps and regularly accuses the poor man of corrupting her son (the aforementioned Leroy, who practically impales Fields with a misplaced ice-pick). Hell, even the dog gives him no respect (the moment Fields tries to wave away the animal with a feather pillow, only to have the contents everywhere, has one of the comics best reactive lines when his wife comments that the feathers were her mothers: “I never knew your mother was a goose”). The poor guy just cannot seem to get a break, even at home.
However, like my father, if there were a poison in Harold Bissonette’s life, the deflator of all his dreams and hopes for the future, then it’s most definitely his wife Amelia.
The Marx Brothers had the irrepressible Margaret Dumont to act as their foil in classics like DUCK SOUP and the immortal NIGHT AT THE OPERA, and so Fields has the trumpeting Kathleen Howard. Like my mother, Howard can clear a room with the octaves of her voice. Always making herself out to be the victim of her husbands machinations, Howard perfectly exudes put-upon exasperation in everything that doesn’t fit into her ideals for life. She’s a woman who wants what she believes is her due (namely, a better house, nice clothes, a maid and a butler) and always bemoans the lost chances that were thwarted by her matrimony to Harold. She pinpoints certain damning words by elevating the tones in her speech and passages like “I don’t have a decent STITCH of clothing to wear” and “I WORK, WORK, WORK, my fingers to the BONE for you” and it seems her lot in life is a never ending barrage of corrals to reign in two kids, a dog and a house, let alone a husband who is half in the bag by the time he returns home for supper every evening. Without Howard, Fields moments of comic exuberance would fall flat and without a board to sound off of. She is the yang to his yin and her very presence is enough to rumble a room whenever she steps into the frame.
But, the plot thickens when a large sum of money left to Harold from a deceased uncle plops into his lap. Initially, Amelia wants to use the cash to upgrade the house and buy the things she feels the family is desperately in need of (clothing, kitchen appliances), let alone sock some away for a rainy day. Yet, Harold has other plans. Forever, Mr. Bissonette has been dreaming of that final place to nestle into and spend the rest of his days (just like my fathers dreams of Florida) in comfort and away from the horrors of everyday life. The picture on a calendar reminds him. The orange groves of sunny California call to him in the deep recesses of his mind and it’s there, all the way across the country, that the lowly grocer hopes to find his salvation. Upon telling Amelia of his desires, he is chastised and likened to a fool. After all, what does Harold now about running an orange plantation? However, set on targeting the west coast, Harold secretly buys a plantation anyway (“one’s as good as any other, I guess”), sells the house in Wappinger Falls, New Jersey, and packs up the family and their belongings for what has to be the journey of horror that inspired NATIONAL LAMPOONS VACATION (“c’mon, it’ll be great. Half the fun is getting there!”).
What I love about Fields films is the way he always breaks the narrative up into three parts. The first part sets the tone and informs the viewer of the characters personalities and predicament. The third and final passage wraps up the story with a coincidental twist that sees Field’s character end up in the green by happy accident. The middle section, however, is the key, the centerpiece of Fields enormous dining table and as with all his other films, IT’S A GIFT’s mid-section sees the comic pull out every bizarre stop to leave the audience aching from laughter. Like every journey, it’s what happens on the road that humbles a man, allows him to take stock in who he is and what it is he is striving for by the end of it. Fields knows this and it’s through the incidental mishaps on the road that brings him to a point of forceful resolve when he finally reaches his destination.
A picnic on the lawns of a millionaire’s home (accidentally mistaken for a park) is a comic gem and allows for some of Fields most inspired physical gags. I can only tell you that I am breathless from laughter when Harold goes to show his son how they used an ax to open a can of stewed tomatoes in the army (“or, maybe, I was thinking of the navy?”), resulting in tomatoes and juice all over his face and chest, or him sitting down on the picnic blanket to enjoy his lunch only to find him wincing from whatever it is he sat on and is pulling from the crack of his ass (“oh, there’s the can-opener!”). Indelibly, each gag plays out like a heightened moment from any of our own fond memories of travel or vacation with our families. I was reminded of all the things my father did during that time off that would, ultimately, entertain me and my brothers by the pure stupidity of it all (like the time he decided to burn a fern tree in our yard. It was infested with bees. The tree was not taking to the spray that was used to remedy the malady, only to see the cops and the fire department show up, threaten to arrest him and fine him for nearly causing a forest fire in the woods immediately next to our house). A stop at a camp ground for rest one evening becomes one of the most memorable moments in the film as Harold joins some college-aged travelers, singing acapella, and finds himself disturbing a herd of cattle with his awful rendition of “A Proud Young Fella”.
The direction of the film is one of the invisible delights of IT’S A GIFT and Norman McLeod keeps the proceedings real and truthful by rarely resorting to a close up. Almost all of the sequences that make up the movie are shot in master shots and this perfectly allows Fields a stage in front of the camera to execute many of the acrobatics and timings that made him a legend of the Vaudeville theatres in the teens and the 20’s. There is a sort of elegance to the raw editing of the film and both the director and Fields strive for making the whole thing come off like a revisit to ones aged home movies. One shot in particular, however, seems to creep up at the half way point and seems completely, but wonderfully, out of place. The turntable of a Victrola record-player is seen centered in the frame and a hand comes in from the right to take hold of the needle and place it on a spinning record of “California, Here I Come”. Completely cinematic and not in keeping with the naked energy of the rest of the film, the shot acts almost like a chapter stop introducing the next step of Harold’s journey into forced discovery and separating it from the more civil moments of the sequences before it. I think what McLeod and Fields are doing by separating the “chapters” in the story is to make us understand that Harold is going from civility to an almost Neanderthal place in his psyche. He’s got nothing to lose that he is already fed up with and it’s his moment to take his destiny by the throat and wrestle it into submission. Harold is still a whimp and runs from the confrontations that loom over him and his wife, but in the midsection of the film he seems like an almost liberated soul that rarely, if ever, actually listens to his spouse in all her ranting madness and accusations.
In the end, Harold makes good on his promise of prosperity and happiness on the other side of the country. While it may have been by pure luck and complete coincidence that he finally got to that spot only reiterates, I think, Fields view of life as a series of events relieved by the belief that things will turn out all right in the end. Like my father, I see Fields as the dreamer, stifled and hen-pecked till he stands up and makes a move of complete authority and without any apologies because of the sweat he squeezed out over years of hard work to keep his brood and his home a secure one. Like my father and his trip to retirement in Florida, Fields is taking the chance, and enjoying all the funny little things that happen along the way.
Amelia admits that she loves her “old fool” of a husband in the end, happy that he stayed determined and got what they all were striving for. Like Amelia, my mother just goes about her day, calling me once a week, and telling me how wonderful it is to live where she does and with the guy that got her there.
My father hates this movie which, when you come to think of it, is probably the highest praise it could ever get.
I love W. C. Fields. The man WAS like a father to me.
How It’s A Gift made the Top 100:









Well, Dennis you have performed mightily here with a towering essay that establishes from the start the family dynamic that you superbly introduce and carry through with irresitible engagement. Yes Fields can be seen as a father figure, and the wives, so expertly delineated as the family matriarchs. Fields starred in three features that can individually be seen by fans as his “best”: THE BANK DICK, THE MAN IN THE FLYING TRAPEZE and IT’S A GIFT, but the latter, reviewed here and rightly finishing in the short list of immortal comedy films, is his masterpiece, and the one that yields the most gleefully repeatable lines and set pieces. Mine are the bits with Carl Le-Fong and Baby LeRoy dropping things through the wood holes, blind and cantakerous Mr. Mukkle dodging traffic leaving the all-purpose store and the picnic. The prevailing humor in this treasure as in others by the comedic icon is one of characters annoying one another. In this case it’s a day in the life of Harold Bissonette, the hen-pecked husband of Kathleen Howard, and the owner of the New Jersey store. In a world of conformity, Fields remains an iconoclast. There is that strain of chauvenism throughout, one in which you deal with so brilliantly in that family dynamic that leads into this definitive work by one of the most adored figures in the comedy pantheon. Take an extended bow, Dennis!
SCHMULEE!!!!!
Thanks so much for the kind words. Your praise and commentary are always on a short list of the stuff I always look forward to and learn from in a big way. You and I have been laughing and analyzing this film for two decades now, know every line and prat-fall, and cry every time another light-bulb breaks in the general store. To say this is just a “favorite” for you and me would be doing the film a dis-service… I can recall many a discussion that heard us liken this one as one of the supreme comic masterpieces of the genre and one of the 50 best films of the 1930′s
ALSO: (and I mean SAM no disrespect here. God knows how much I love the man and value his friendship-20 years strong now) Part of my love for Fields, and the fact that SAM introduced me to him, is that I see some of Fields in Sam. Always busy doing something and sometimes pushing other duties to the side for his passions, it’s always a laugh riot when Schmulee stands in the middle of a disaster, throws his arms in the air from defeat, and shouts “UNBELIEVABLE” as all hell breaks loose. With Fields, I’m reminded of Sam’s good nature and humble personality that often rises above the hysteria that’s within his midst…
I can never thank SAM enough for turning me on to whom I think is one of the definative film clowns in cinema and, absolutely, one of the greatest comic screen personalities with the likes of Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Groucho, Stan and Ollie and Woody Allen.
We have sat, together, through this film more than a dozen times and it never ceases to leave us in tears of hysterical laughter.
And, remember Schmulee: It’s LAFONG. Capital “L”, small “A”, capital “F”, small “O”, small “N”, small “G”…
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
hahahahahahaha!!! Love it Dennis! Can’t deny you have pretty much nailed this scenario!
Am I wrong???? LOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Dennis, a great analysis of Harold Bissonnette and Mrs. Bissonnette and the ways Fields mines their characters and their opposite natures for humor. Fields always struck me as an unlikely person to portray a family man. Yet most of his full-length films seem to deal with dysfunctional family dynamics. I certainly agree that this is his greatest film. I think that’s because it’s the most compelling expression of that recurrent theme. You wrote that Bissonnette is basically a “good-natured soul.” I think that’s another reason I prefer this film to all his others, because he makes his character so likable and in his way gentle despite the unbelievable provocation he endures. He goes out of his way to avoid conflict yet always seems to be thrust into the middle of it. And I’m sure you’re not the only one who recognized in Fields and his family in this film people we know from our own lives. I don’t think any comedy countdown could be complete without W. C. Fields, and this film is the obvious choice for recognizing his contribution to film comedy.
R. D.
Thanks so much for the high praise!!!!!! I had a few reservations about the success of this piece and I submitted it to SAM early last month for proofreads and suggestions for how to tighten it up and make it more effective. Surprisingly (well, at least surprising cause I didn’t think it was good), SAM had little to say in the negative and it pretty much went to publication the moment I finished it. This review is probably my personal favorite of the few reviews I have written so far for the site (although, I don’t know if it’s my best), but I think it’s more because of the subject and the film rather than whether or not I rose to the challenge of writing about it.
The parallels that I see with everyday life and the character that Fields plays in this film, I believe, are absolutely intentional. Unlike the anarchic Marx Brothers, the bumbling and unrealistic fools that are Laurel and Hardy, or the cartoonish dolts that make up The Three Stooges, Fields has always been a real person for me and most that see his films. In his BEST films (and this and THE MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE would be my choices for the cream of the crop), Fields is a very good man, good natured (if completely hen-pecked and corralled), often perplexed by what life offers him, and only ever wanting to be given an easy existence. What makes his best work so funny to me, is that it’s the reality of the character and the situations that always ring familiar to people and events in our own lives. I have seen much of Fields in people like my father and dear Sam and I think that’s where Fields, ultimately, triumphs as one of the truly great comic personalities in all of cinema. Quite frankly, he IS the most realistic of any of his contemporaries (at the time) and often the inspiration for the kind of comedy we get from 1977 on (where the game changer, Woody Allen’s ANNIE HALL, shows itself). Fields is the “father” of “everyday” comedy and I shutter to think where comedy would be TODAY without the strides he made in the 1930′s.
Wonderful review. I laughed just reading your descriptions of Fields trying to shave and keep order in his store.
Wonderful to have you here, Jake. I know that you, recently, saw this film in your “classic screen comedy” class over at the School of Visual Arts and I’m thrilled to know that the “big brains” over there revere this film with the same kind of love and respect as we all do here. I love much of Fields work (MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE is another major favorite of mine), but IT’S A GIFT is so jammed packed with great moments that is surpasses (by a hair) even his most famous films like MY LITTLE CHICKADEE and THE BANK DICK.
SAM (one of the monitors of, and the owner of WONDERS) turned me on to Fileds canon many years ago and I’ve been a major supporter of his work ever since. The guy just cracks me up.
Brilliant Dennis! Love all your personal touches and your love for the film shines through. This is absolutely Fields’s masterpiece. I say that because for the unique comedic personalities like Fields, The Marxes, Laurel and Hardy….it was not the directors per se, but they were their own auteurs in a way. Fields to me was never better or more on top of his game here. Love the self deprecation and how everyone can seemingly identify with elements of the family here, like you mentioned with your own family. One of the funniest movies ever made. I grew up with Fields as well…my uncle introduced him to me at a young age as I used to watch My Little Chickadee when I was about 5 years old. Great memories.
JON!!!!!
Absolutely!!!! While he may have had a few features that come close to the brilliance of IT’S A GIFT (MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE and YOU’RE TELLING ME almost make it), none of them ever hit the familiar mark that this one hits. I think most of its success and adoration comes from the direct connections WE make with the family unit and the dreamer that Fields plays in this. It’s reality, plain and simple, and, as we know, life is far more bizarre than any made up fiction could ever be…
I agree, IT’S A GIFT is one of the funniest movies ever made. I find myself laughing uncontrollably EVERY time he hits that roller skate and comes tumbling into the dining room…
Dennis, a terrific tie-in between the dynamics of your family and Fields. First thanks for sharing those personal moments. It sounds like life was never boring in your family household. Your description of the film is superb and your appreciation for Kathleen Howard is well deserved. I love you narrative which I copied below…
“Howard can clear a room with the octaves of her voice. Always making herself out to be the victim of her husbands machinations, Howard perfectly exudes put-upon exasperation in everything that doesn’t fit into her ideals for life. She’s a woman who wants what she believes is her due (namely, a better house, nice clothes, a maid and a butler) and always bemoans the lost chances that were thwarted by her matrimony to Harold.”
Fields like Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy along with a few others deserves a spot in the hierarchy of early cinematic geniuses.
I’d like to join in with the chorus in offering praise for Dennis’ exceptional investigation of a comedy classic. His approach here is refreshing and riveting. I’m kind of ashamed that I left this off my ballot, since it’s Fields’s best feature. The whole business with Mukkel is my favorite gig.
Thank you, PETER…
I was going to go a more conventional way with the essay; basically just jumping in and giving a quick scenario and then listing the films merits… However, my style in the past has been most successful when I bring in a personal connection, or so many have said (Joel Bocko is my biggest supporter when it comes to this), and with this PARTICULAR film, and because I adore it so much, I couldn’t fathom writing it out without visions of my father’s relationship to my nut-job mother permeating my thoughts. I really appreciate the kind words on this side of the review as it’s the one element I had a few reservations about when I first started it off…
JOHN-Thanks so much, you are always one of my biggest supporters and the praise is always so inspirational that it makes me want to do more in the way of essays and reviews here.
My home life was always crazy. My mother is English, proper and organized, my father is an old world Italian with deep conservative roots. However, like Fields in this film, my father was always coming up with “great ideas” that my mother was more than ready to deflate and the conversations at the dinner table could horrify a passerby where they were achingly funny to me and my brothers (my mother would get even more pissed off the more we laughed). In the end, though, my fathers faith in his abilities paid off and, finally, won over my mothers fullest support. My childhood with them was a never ending barrage of crazy scenarios, off-the-wall screaming arguments, shouts out the window, failed inventions and complete bafflement when disaster struck.
And, then, after all the noise settled, they grew older and the arguments subsided, I met Sam and it started all over again.
Part of my deep friendship with Sam comes from us both coming out of, and growing up in, the same kind of environment. Nobody spoke in our houses, they screamed. When I look at this film I am always reminded of my parents and Sam and our extended families.
Kathleen Howard should be championed. Without her volcanic performance as Fields dragon-like better half the films central human relationship would be lost and she’s the perfect sounding board for his muttering incompetance. He could never get a great idea off the ground as one of his characters because she’s there, hands on hips, armed with a rolling pin, looking to beat his brains in just for being himself. In my mind, she gave the best performance by a supporting actress in 1934 for this film.
Dennis -
What a vivid and beautfifully written essay! I feel like I know your family – and can easily picture how your love of W. C .Fields developed. I watched Fields’ films many years ago (with my own dreamer of a Dad) and I must have seen this one somewhere along the way, but they’ve all sort of blended together for me. You make this film come alive and make me want to watch it soon to reclaim some memories of my own. Thanks for sharing!
PAT…
You feel like you know my family??? God, what an awful thought. I don’t think I could ever stand to bring people I respect into my house back then. It was constant bickering and arguing. My mother never stopped screaming or cleaning. At funerals she’d put on shows of remorse so wild and loud we often wondered why funereal directors didn’t hire her as a “professional mourner”. I hate to say it, but when I look back at those formative years I often wonder why the guys in with the butterfly nets and in the white coats didn’t pull up the “ice cream trucks” to take her away for a rest. I often tell her she’d have had fun, painting lawn furniture and weaving baskets…
Dennis is a creative guy, of this there can be no question. C-A-R-L L-E F-O-N-G is mired in my brain. I screwed up by not voting for it. This is what happens when you do a rush job. This is one of my favorite of all comedy films.
FRANK…
No worries, between my vote (98 points) and the top 20 votes it received, it was a foregone conclusion that IT’S A GIFT would LANDSLIDE into the top 20 with ease. I spoke to Allan yesterday, who had read the review days ago in gallies on WORDPRESS, and even he admitted that he should have put it higher.
No matter, the films breathless ease into brilliance through simplicity was big in capturing the admiration of many of the voters and it’s here in the top tiers where it belongs…
Like Keaton, Fields had multiple comic personae. When I was a kid, he was always identified with his mountebank roles, and You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man and My Little Chickadee were probably considered his definitive roles. Since then, I’ve seen more appreciation for his proto-sitcom pictures where he plays the henpecked husband, and Dennis makes the reasons why vividly clear. Those situations and performances ring true. You can see an evolutionary resemblance to modern sitcoms, though most of those, rather than taking the beset dad’s side, seem to endorse everyone else’s view of him. You can also see the resemblance in Gift’s epic absence of political correctness in the scene with Mr. Muckle. But unlike modern sitcoms, Gift is a movie people are likely to appreciate more as they grow older. I know that’s true for me. Thanks, Dennis.
SAMUEL…
Good points all around. I got to see this film for the first time about 20 years ago through Sam. I came to it relatively late in life (I was 27 years old at the time) and the appreciation I have for it spans directly from the familiarity I think we all have for the family unit depicted in this film. Every family has a domineering presence in it and a submissive to boot. In my house it was my Mom calling the shots whereas the father figure may have been stronger in someone elses household. The facts remain, that it’s the simplicity of everyday arguments and conversations that inform most of the best and funnniest gags in the movie.
Yeah, I wonder if if this film, and some of the other films in this genre of the time, were directly lifted in theme for early television sitcoms. I can see alot of THE HONEYMOONERS in IT’S A GIFT (though Alice is never as tyrannical as Mrs. Bissonette) as well as some of the devices of this film leaking over to shows as recent as THE SIMPSONS (now 23 years on the air and still going strong).
Ok Dennis, this IS an epic review. You kindly showered those words in the previous thread but your work here stands on Mountain Epic on its own
I suppose having this review be left alone on a quiet mountain feels ideal.
Starting off with your personal story only emphasizes what the film & W.C Fields means to you. And it also nicely puts it context why you regard this film so highly. Unfortunately, I have not seen it but I have to see it now…
Thanks for such a heartfelt incredible review. A virtual bow to you
SACHIN…
If you want to see this film just say the word. Sam and I both have ways of getting to you without hesitation. I value and protect my DVD of it like it were the gold of KING SOLOMONS MINES. On a short list of my favorite moves ever, I know it would figure, DEFINATELY, in my top 20. The film is a whirl-wind of great gags coming at you like rapid machine-gun fire and the moment you catch your breath from one funny bit is the same moment you lose is all over again with the next one.
I loved your piece on THE LADY EVE. It hit, for me, every note and important point about the film and was extraordinary in bringing someone who had never seen it into the world of Sturges enough to make it a must to see right away. I think THE LADY EVE houses Stanwyck’s most perfect performance.
I’ll take the bow because your effusive words of kindness are too good to resist…
Thanks for the offer Dennis. Luckily, I managed to track down a copy of the film locally and will try to see it soon.
GREAT!!!! Let us know what you think about the film!!!!!!
Dennis, I love you for this — and I love your family, as well. Your vivid, quite personal remembrance is the perfect lead-in for this universal and classic tale, which — as you can see by my ranking — is one of the best comedies of all time.
PIERRE…
Thank you so much for all the love. However, I’d reserve your love for the essay and the film as I doubt you’d ever wanna talk to me again if I put you in a room with my mother or the rest of my family. Immediately upon entering the spot of a family function (let’s say a wedding or a confirmation), they will smile, shake your hand and, the moment you turn your back or move to the bar for a drink…
WHAMMO!!!!
The gossip, the comments, the snide remarks begin…
Like Uma Thurman said in PULP FICTION:
“When you little scamps get together your worse than a womens sewing circle”.
I’ll take your word for it, Dennis . . . but they must’ve done something right for you to enjoy such a wonderful film and write such a great essay.
Well, at least my mother would credit herself only as the one that did something right…
Then, she’d tell my father to go take out the garbage…
I love this movie, and this is a great meditation on its energy and themes. It also made me think how, 80 years ago, the comedy archetype was the fool who somehow struggled against the odds. I wonder if it still is? We laughed with as much as at the silent clowns as well as Fields who were all kind of losers yet also dreamers as well. Admirable in their chutzpah. Something very American in that. I’d imagine a lot of us can see our dads in Fields!
JOEL…
If there is one person whose opinion I always look forward to time and again it’s yours. You always have something nice to say about my pieces and I think you truly admire the personal aspects I sometimes add to parallel the review.
I think the landscape in film comedy has changed, maybe not drastically, but certainly. In my opinion, the landscape took an intellectual turn towards the cerebral when ANNIE HALL appeared in 1977. Sure, we still get the slob comedies and spoofs but, since that pinnacle year, the basics of the form have genuinely taken a turn toward the more intelligent, individualistic and liberal. Yes, I think alot of what the early masters of the form were doing can still be traced up to us now, just a little smarter and little more full of ourselves. Woody Allen, in my opinion (and lover of films like these), is the major game changer and he’s been belting out smarter comedies for over thirty years now. He is the game changer of the form and, therefore, brings a rich acknowledgement to the classic comics with him. I think films like IT’S A GIFT are here in the films made today. However, I think what we have is a filtration system of them coming through to us via the standards Woody Allen has created since 1977. Since the days of Fields, The Stooges, Bob Hope, The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy (not to mention the great silent masters Chaplin, Lloyd and Keaton), there has been relativewly little of worth or substance in film comedy…
Until Woody Allen.
I think you’re right that Allen influenced (or at the very least reflected) a turn in comedy toward the less social. Whether it’s a lowbrow comedy like Old School or something more sophisticated like Wes Anderson, you still have characters retreating from society and creating their own little worlds. And I think that’s partly Woody – as Annie says in that film, “You’re like New York – this island unto yourself!” Of course, one could argue that’s exactly what Fields is doing here, in this film. Yet the way he pursues his utopia is all-American, and – with his family in tow and his dreams conditioned by economic reality (and fantasy) – there’s a definite Everyman quality to it.
I often love a lot of later American comedies, but I kind of miss this sense of engagement. It first occurred to me a few years back when I saw a couple Harold Lloyd comedies and realized that his characters were goofballs, outsiders, underdogs but they still tried to make it IN the world that gave them an unfair advantage to begin with. There’s two sides to this coin, of course: the former attitude (at least when not offered in the bracingly brilliant terms of Keaton or Lloyd) can be conformist, ironing out the kinks and rough edges that make us like these characters to begin with. And there’s certainly something to be said for refusing to play by the rules of the rat race (although the consequences of this refusal are rarely shown, even in more serious contemporary films; often, the milieu is wealthy so these consequences are eschewed). Yet there’s an admirable pluck in those little guys from the early comedies, and I sort of miss it in a pop cultural landscape where, if you don’t fit in, you’re supposed to just retreat into your own subcultural shell. Rather than run out onto the football field like Lloyd and get battered to prove that you can at least run with the big boys, even if they’re trampling all over you…
Hmm, all of this seems too serious for a comedy discussion lol. But what would a Wonders thread be without digressions?!
And yes, I definitely respond to your impressionistic memoir approach – you’ve got a definite authorial voice I find very engaging. By the way, total side note but you should check out the video I just posted on the ’67 voting thread (twice). I won’t post it again here but I think you’ll dig it – it has that nostalgic, humanistic vibe you generally seem to respond to. And as someone noted in a blog post I just saw while googling the video, the kid in it looks kind of like Woody Allen.
This has been one of the most enlightening and enjoyable of essays – one to slot into very top tier of WitD classics. I think the structure of the piece, the opening statement, the follow through with biographical backstory and then the breakdown of the film…superb. And I couldn’t stop thinking of Larry David whilst reading it. Bravo Dennis.
BOBBY J. …
Thank you ever so much for the whopping words of praise. I must admit, everyone that has come to the comments section for this particular “review” has been exceedingly generous with their adjectives in describing it as one of their favorites. It was the personal favorite of mine as well although I didn’t really think it was all that special when I wrote it up. As I said in a previous comment reply, I sent this one off to SAM for a proofread (which I do with all my stuff) and was shocked that Schmulee had nothing cross or critical to say about it at all. This one was a big surprise to me and I am so flattered that so many really liked it (Sorry, I’m starting to sound like Sally Field here). The good word of mouth actually flew into my face and made me eat my own words.
In the end, I have to say that I found your comments, BOBBY, to be the ones I cherish most. You came straight to the point with why you liked it and you used a word I never thought I’d ever see linked to one of my reviews (“enlightening”). I guess this is all I could have ever truly hoped for with any piece I write and you really, REALLY made my day.
But, what really put your comment into my “favorites” box was the unabashed flattery you gave me with your thinking of LARRY DAVID while you read it.
Some would see that likening as an insult (Larry is often crass, unmannered and a total buffoon in the end), but as a MAJOR fan of Larry’s work (both on the immortal SEINFELD and the soon to be immortal CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM), I take it as the highest praise and think I understand the reason for the connection. I only ever willingly invite you to a night out with me and Sam sometime as I think the connection you found between me and Larry would illustrate itself even further in our company and on a simple trip to something like coffee. Like this classic Fields film, or any episode of CURB, it’s the everyday predicaments, and how we choose to react to them, that make for the best comedy.
That, and alot of hysterical whining and cursing.
Thanks again BOBBY!!!!
You really made me smile with this one.