by John Greco
Do you remember the first film you ever recorded? I do, it was Billy Wilder’s Some Like it Hot way back sometime in the 1960’s. “Wait a minute!” You say, “How can you have recorded it back in the 1960’s when VCR’s did not come out until the late 1970’s?” Well, it was simple, on a reel-to-reel tape recorder. I loved this film so much I recorded the entire soundtrack. I use to lay down in bed or on the couch with my headphones on and listen to the entire movie, visualizing all the scenes.
Crazy, weird? Probably, I am sure my parents thought so.
Needless to say, Some Like it Hot is one of my favorite movies, it has stood the test of time. Because of this film, I became a lifelong admirer of both director Billy Wilder and Jack Lemmon. It is a film I never get tired of watching.
Before and since its release in 1959, there have been many films that have used men in drag as a plot device (“I Was A Male War Bride”, “Tootsie”, “La Cage aux Folles”), even TV shows like “Bosom Buddies” got into the act, however none have come close or surpassed “Some Like it Hot” in its farcical humor. The well-known storyline is simple, it is 1929, two Chicago musicians, Joe (Tony Curtis) and Jerry (Jack Lemmon), witness The Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre after which they decide it might be best for their health if they leave town. The only jobs available are as musicians in an all girl band heading for Florida. It is at the train station they meet Sugar “Kane” Kowalczyk (Marilyn Monroe) a ukulele player and singer with the band.
Wilder opens the film with an old fashion 1930’s Warner Brothers style shootout. The police are hot in pursuit of a Hearst packed with members of Spats Columbo’s gang. Firepower is exploding from both sides with no concern for innocent passerby’s. The battle rages until the police car skids and smashes into a poll. Losing the cops, the hoodlums, in the back of the Hearst, open up the damaged coffin to find the bullet ridden remains of hundreds of bottles of bootleg booze.
Inside Mozerella’s Funeral Parlor, a front for a speakeasy, we meet Joe and Jerry, the two musicians whose lives are about to change drastically. Within moments, they will be out of work after a raid by the police thanks to a snitch named “Toothpick” Charlie (George E. Stone). Evading the police during the raid, the now out of work boys make the rounds of various music agencies only to find out the two available jobs for a sax and bass player are in an All Girls Band, or a $6 a piece gig some one hundred miles away. The boys opt for the long snowy drive, borrowing Nellie Wymers car which is parked in a garage, unknowingly to the boys, a hangout for local hoods. It is here they innocently witness the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre. Suddenly, the job dressed as women in an All Girls Band, more than a thousand miles away in Florida, does not seem so bad.
As they join the band at the train station, Joe and Jerry have transform into Josephine and Geraldine, who is soon to become Daphne (Jerry never liked the name Geraldine). The new girls, “brand new!” as Jerry comments, meet the rest of the band on the train including Sugar “Kane” (Marilyn Monroe) the beautiful, vulnerable singer/ukulele player.
Once in Florida, Joe adds a second disguise as Junior, the wealthy son of a millionaire (Shell Oil), who quickly attempts to seduce the sexy though naive Sugar. Meanwhile Jerry, I mean Daphne, is pursued by octogenarian Osgood Fielding III (Joe E. Brown) who falls head over heels in love and wants to marry her.
Before long the Chicago gangsters show up for a “convention” of the Friends of Italian Opera and well, all hell breaks loose leading to the now classic closing line by Osgood after he proposes marriage to Daphne who reveals she’s a he!
“Well, nobody’s perfect.” Osgood responds.
At the time of its release, the Catholic Legion of Decency gave the film a condemned rating (in Kansas, they actually banned the film); subsequently Some Like it Hot joined a flock of notable films ruled objectionable to viewing by all Catholics. This included films like The Outlaw, Black Narcissus, Fritz Lang’s M, And God Created Woman and Baby Doll. The big “C” rating usually meant the large Catholic population would stay away from these films and boycott them into oblivion. However, by 1959, the Legion, along with the Motion Picture Production Code was beginning to lose their grip. Audiences, both Catholic and non-Catholic went to see “Some Like it Hot” turning it into one of the biggest hits of the year. So why was Some Like it Hot condemned? One three-letter word…sex!
As Osgood would say, “Zowie!”
Billy Wilder and co-screenwriter I.A.L Diamond wrote a script that is not only funny but also loaded with sexual innuendo. The now classic train berth scene where Jerry/Daphne plans a private slumber party for just him and Sugar turns into an accidental wild bash with just about every female band member climbing into the berth ready to party hardy including one baby doll wearing blonde flaunting a large salami. The scene progresses into a sea of pajama clad female bodies climbing all over each other, reminiscent of the stateroom scene in The Marx Brothers, A Night at the Opera, with plenty of booze spilling, inappropriate hand movement and by the end of the scene a frustrated Jerry/Daphne in the middle of a male fantasy gone haywire. Later on, Joe’s seduction of Sugar aboard Osgood’s yacht where he pretends to be an impotent millionaire speaking with an obvious phony Cary Grant accent. Sugar’s attempts to “revive” the millionaire’s sleeping libido steams up not only his glasses but also the entire movie screen. Meanwhile on shore, Jerry/Daphne and lecherous millionaire Osgood Fielding III are steaming up the floor with a hot tango.
So where are we here? We have Joe posing as woman (Josephine) who then impersonates a guy (Junior) in an attempt to get Sugar into bed. Then there is Jerry as Geraldine who change “her” name to Daphne and is pursued by a dirty millionaire mama’s boy. Anyone familiar with Wilder’s work is aware that impersonation is a common theme in his films. In his very first directorial effort, The Major and the Minor he had Ginger Rogers posing as a 12-year-old girl. In Irma La Douce, Jack Lemmon is a French police officer who poses as an English Lord and then there was Kim Novak as Polly the Pistol, a hooker who poses as a married housewife in 1964′s Kiss Me Stupid.
Acting kudos belong to all three leads. Monroe was a limited actress but she had a gift for knowing what was right for Marilyn Monroe. A true movie star if not a great actress, she managed to offer a combination of strong overt womanly sexuality, yet maintaining a childlike innocence that manages to make the most explicit double entendres sound innocent. Sex with Marilyn is steamy and exciting but never threatening.
Jack Lemmon became a major star with this film and found a creative career partner in Billy Wilder with whom he would go on to make six more films. Lemmon was still under contract to Columbia when Wilder approached him for the role. In order to work with Wilder on this film, Lemmon had to agree to extend his contract with Columbia. Instead of the one film he then owed Harry Cohn, he agreed to make four more films for the studio.
Tony Curtis’ work as Joe has generally been overshadowed by Lemmon’s breakout performance, and Monroe’s sexuality, yet Curtis is an accomplished comedic actor who has been overlooked throughout his career, not just in comedy but in dramatic parts too (Sweet Smell of Success). His Cary Grant imitation in the film came about when Wilder asked him if there is anyone he could imitate. When Curtis said Cary Grant, Wilder was ecstatic; he always wanted to make a film with the debonair Mr. Grant, this would be as close as he would ever come. Curtis was also a victim of Marilyn’s bad work habits. Her performance would improve after multiple takes, while Tony was generally at his best in the early takes. Wilder usually went with Marilyn’s best sacrificing Tony’s performance. After all, most eyes were going to be on Monroe.
Wilder and Diamond’s dialogue just rolls off the tongues of his cast like an expensive bottle of wine. When Joe/Josephine and Jerry/Daphne first spot Sugar walking along the train platform, Jerry tells Joe, “It’s just like Jell-O on springs! Some sort of built in motor. I tell ya’ it’s a whole different sex.” The movie is filled with just about one classic scene after another. After Jerry announces to Joe that he is engaged.
Joe asks, “Who’s the lucky girl?”
“I am” Jerry replies. “Osgood proposed to me. We’re planning a June Wedding.”
“You can’t marry Osgood!” Joe tells him.
“Why? Do you think he’s too old for me?”
Joe tells Jerry he had better lie down.
Jerry replies, “Will you stop treating me like a child. I know there’s a problem.”
“I’ll say there is!” Joe said
“His mother! We need her approval. But I’m not worried, because I don’t smoke.”
“Jerry there is another problem. Like what are you going to do on your honeymoon?”
“We’ve been discussing that,” Jerry says, “He wants to go to the Riviera and I kinda lean toward Niagara Falls.”
Who else but Wilder, and he knew Marilyn’s childlike delivery could get away with it, would write a line like “That’s the story of my life; I always get the fuzzy end of the lollipop.”
A few years earlier, Wilder swore he would never work with Monroe again after making The Seven Year Itch, claiming life is too short. Yet, here he was with MM again because well, no one was like Marilyn. She was oblivious to others, not necessarily uncaring, just oblivious. Lemmon and Curtis would spend hours getting ready in makeup for their roles and then would have to sit around and wait until Marilyn came out of her trailer. Still, when you saw her on the screen, it was magical. Wilder compared her screen presence to Garbo. Speaking of Monroe, there is the scene where she sings “I Wanna Be Love By Love” while wearing what amounts to a see-through gown, so carefully lit that Wilder managed to get it passed the vigilant eyes of the censors.
Tony Curtis was pretty much signed up for the film from the start. Wilder originally planned on Frank Sinatra as Joe and Mitzi Gaynor as Sugar. Curtis was originally scheduled to play Jerry. Then Monroe signed on. Along the way, Sinatra was out and the young and upcoming Jack Lemmon signed on for the role of Jerry. Curtis switched over to the role of Joe. The film was originally to be shot in color, however, after a few screen tests of the boys dressed as girls were completed, it was decided they would be more believable in black and white. In truth, neither Lemmon nor Curtis are very convincing as women, unlike say Dustin Hoffman in “Tootsie.” Watching the film recently, I keep getting the feeling that Lemmon looked at times like a deranged combination of Angela Lansbury’s Jessica Fletcher and Heath Ledger’s “The Joker.” They get away with it mainly because Some Like it Hot is a wild farce as opposed to a more straight comedic film with a message, like Tootsie.
The movie is not just Monroe, Lemmon and Curtis; Wilder pays loving tribute to the Warner Brothers gangster film with George Raft playing Spats Colombo and Pat O’Brien as Police Detective Mulligan. Wilder also used Little Caesar alumni George E. Stone in the role of “Toothpick” Charlie. There is also a wonderful scene with Raft and a young thug flipping a coin in the air, Raft’s trademark move from the original 1933 Scarface. He tells the thug, “Where did you get that cheap trick?” The thug is played by Edward G. Robinson Jr. Warner Brothers alumni Edward Robinson Sr. was originally supposed to play Little Bonaparte, a role ultimately performed by Nehemiah Peroff. Then there is Joe E. Brown whose pronunciation of Wilder and Diamonds dialogue is well, “Zowie,” thanks to a very large mouth. Also on board are Wilder favorite Joan Shawlee as Sweet Sue. Character actor Mike Mazurski (“Ain’t I had the pleasure of meeting you two broads before?”) is one of the not so brightly lit hoods.
The Florida scenes were filmed in San Diego at the famed Coronado Hotel. And I would be remiss if I did not mention Charles Lang’s beautiful black and white photography.
Not all critics at the time were bowled over by Some Like it Hot. Some were shocked by the risqué humor (Judith Crist for one), still the film was a monumental hit. Today, it is considered arguably one of the funniest films ever put on celluloid. The American Film Institute named it the funniest film ever made, for what that is worth. Is it Wilder’s best film? Many would argue so, and with a filmography consisting of such works like The Apartment, Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd, Ace in the Hole and others it is tough to make a definitive choice. For me, as I stated in the beginning, it was the first film I ever recorded and one of my all-time favorites, I consider it up there with City Lights, The Gold Rush, Duck Soup and The Producers as one of the greatest comedies ever made, and a sentimental favorite to say the least.
How Some Like It Hot made the Top 100:
John, your love for this film comes through clearly right from the beginning. I do consider this a lovable film, and it’s certainly Wilder’s most lovable. I detect little or none of the cynicism he used to lard even his most innocuous films with (although the teasing of the censors with his delight in perverse sexuality carries over intact). The three stars are an incomparable team–Lemmon pulling out all the stops for farcical effect, Monroe radiating sexuality in a role she was born to play, Curtis surprising with his savvy, measured performance and hilarious imitation of Cary Grant. “The Apartment” may be Wilder’s most emotionally complex and most subtle comic film, but this one is his funniest, a thoroughly enjoyable movie the whole way through.
R.D. The three stars are magic. Monroe really shows what a great commeidienne she was. Lemmon is superb and just runs amok And Curtis plays both straight man and commedian. The rest of the cast is also worthy from George Raft, Joe. E Brown, Pat O’Brien Joan Shawnee and George E. Stone (“Sorry charlie). Thanks
OppsQ i mispelled “comedienne.”
Great opening anecdote. The film is very funny, and sexy (the bunk scene you mention is a gem, and your characterization of it is dead-on; in this film Wilder manages to both indulge and wildly subvert male fantasy). For some reason, I always tend to overlook it when it comes to listing “great” movies, although I usually find space for other comedies. I always enjoy it when I see it though – which is what really counts, I suppose.
MM – the upper berth scene is truly male fantasy gone haywire. One of my many favorite scene in this film.
John….great to have this film reviewed by someone with a passion for it. I don’t blame you at all. This is one of the essential comedies and….I only wish it made the top 10! I had it ranked really high on my list. It comes very close to my definition of perfect comedy. It is loaded wall to wall with gems…classic scenes, great lines, great performances, in-jokes etc…..and it’s so hilarious! You brought to light all the great things about the film…even down to Curtis and his “Carey Grant” which is a hoot. I honestly can’t understand how someone would not like this film….although there is one name in particular that left this absent off his ballot and I know he has trouble with it. Hopefully he will elaborate on that.
Wonderful essay….one of your best sir.
I know Mr. SJ and a few others are not fans, that’s fine of course, but I know some folks here and on other sites compare it to THE APARTMENT and I don’t think that is a fair comparison. SLIH is a farce and should be judged as so whereas THE APARTMENT is certainly grounded more in reality. Just a thougth. Anyway thanks Jon!
Really great review John Greco! I’d say it’s the best of the ‘dressed in drag’ movies, and all told a landmark in the cinema, sexy, perfectly-timed and outrageous.
Thanks Peter! Yes, the timing is perfect, the lines are sharp and it is sexy and outrageous. Could not agree more.
Wilder and Diamond’s dialogue just rolls off the tongues of his cast like an expensive bottle of wine.
So true. The lines keep coming so quickly and often that one barely has time admist the hysterics to catch one’s breath. I really enjoyed your summation, John. I remember reading that, when Tony Curtis was asked what it was like to kiss Monroe, his reply was strongly negative (like kissing a fish or something, as I recall).
There are so many elements that make this film so great. If I had to choose one it would be Lemmon’s performance — but that would be unfair to the rest of it.
Pierre,
I remember reading Curtis’ remarks about kissing Monroe too. Lemmon was the first actor I became a fan of way back when and this film along with THE APARTMENT, MR. ROBERTS, and some lesser films from 50′s and the early 60′s really cemented my admiration for his comedic timng.
I have been hiding all morning. In seclusion. Heavily clothed with a bullet-proof vest, and armed with a shield. I dreaded this day like the plague. And knew I would face the inquisition fully prepared to admit my act of rhetorical blasphemy on a film that is regarded by nearly everyone on this planet as one of the greatest comedy masterpieces the cinema has yet seen by one of America’s most justly celebrated directors. The reason I have been staying away to this point also has something to do with the fact that I was and still am unprepared to offer a satisfactory reason why I never cared for this film despite a number of viewings. Some of my dearest friends on this thread have come here with bells on (and pray tell, not the holiday kind, but bells of a festive nature to herald in John Greco’s landmark essay on the film, certainly a Hall of Fame entry from a passionate and informed fan) and to wax lyrical on a film that has been woven in the American cultural consciousness for decades. Some even dare to say it belongs in the top spot or close to it.
OK. I’ll come clean, but please don’t hold it against me. Treat me as the Bishop of Vigne did with Jean Valjean, or at least as Rameses did with Moses, giveng him that final chance to thrive in the wilderness. I have always found the film boring, a chore to sit through, and not really all that funny. Mind you I have always enjoyed LA CAGE AUX FOLLES, THE BIRDCAGE and VICTOR/VICTORIA.
Do I get any points for that? Dennis Polifroni has been guarding my office at school watching for some movie fans waiting to give me my due. He is down in the World Book of Records as the only other dissenter of the film presently breathing.
Some things simply defy explanation, Sam. I feel similarly about His Girl Friday — I’m simply not moved by it. I don’t hold this against you. Who knows what the reasons are for the the way we feel. So, when I say you’re simply silly, I say it lovingly!
LOL Pierre!!! I hear ya, and thank you kindly for that! I know there would be the spirit of mercy here from a dear friend and an expression of the holiday spirit!
While I don’t share Sam’s apathy for Some Like It Hot, I will join him in one little facet of probable agreement… in no way shape or form is Some Like It Hot better than Wilder’s other big time comedy The Apartment. This is the one aspect pertaining to SLIH I’ll never quite understand.
Sam – I see a few other missing names among the voters above, so I supect you are not alone.
Know how you feel, Sam. I once got clipped in the jaw by a reeling drunk Kubrick aficionado when I referred to Mr. K. as the Naked Emperor. I was drunk too, of course, and we were both 86′d from the bar. Permanently.
SAM-
I don’t hide at all on this one. I HATE SOME LIKE IT HOT.
Period. Done. Finished.
I have tried many times to sit through this landmark bore of film and have put on a happy face in the past when people speak of the it as one of their favorites because they speak of it sooooo passionately. However, unlike you, I know exactly why I hate this film and can detail every point of my reasoning.
1. First, the film is cementing itself with an absolutely unreal situation. As for Wilder’s more comic films, he usually grounds them in a sea of believability. SUNSET BOULEVARD, THE APARTMENT and ONE TWO THREE thrive off premises that could actually happen or, at the very least, are shadows of reality. SOME LIKE IT HOT bases itself on the notion that these two guys are women when, in fact, you’d have to be doing heroin or drinking 24 hours a day not to realize that Lemmon and Curtis are men in drag. Hoffmann IS a woman in TOOTSIE. Big difference.
2. Marilyn Monroe-I’m sorry but, for me, she doesn’t add a thing to this film. While she was fine in throwaway material like THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH and HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE, she just doesn’t maintain the acting or comic chops to pull the character off. Personally, her voice goes through my head like a nail and the musical numbers in the film that require her to “sing” are relative to Robert Shaw running his unclipped fingernails down the blsckboard in JAWS. If SOME LIKE IT HOT’s point is a feeling of unbeliavability then Wilder most definately succeeded in attaining that feel by putting one of the worst actresses in history in the lead role (she might have been good looking, sexy and deirable, but Monroe was no great shakes as an actress, suffered from severe stupidity and aloofness and was often used as a cum-dumpster by those with power and knew of her lack of brains-a little John and Bobby Kennedy anyone?????).
3. THE BIGGEST DETRIMENT. The film is TOO LONG. SOME LIKE IT HOT’s most severe coffin nail, for me anyway, is it’s length. The premise is set up in the first 20 minutes of the movie and then dragged, like a dead corpse, for another 1 hour and 45 minutes. Frankly, the story is too unbelievable to sustain that kind of epic length and, particularly in scenes involving the gangster bosses and meetings, the movie has tendency to beat a dead horse. Ok, fine, they’re on the run from the gangsters, their dressed in drag, one is being chased by a man too stupid to see he’s not a girl, etc. etc. etc. Clip this movie by about 45 miniutes and I think you might have a tighter, more well-rounded farce. The stuff with the mob is too drawn out. I’d have jettisoned ALL of the Monroe material and limited the never ending music sequences of the picture (or, done away with them entirely). That Jack and Tony are in drag, with Lemmon being chased, romantically, by Joe-E-Brown is funny enough. The problem with this one is that Diamond and Wilder, again for me, were too caught up in patting themselves on the back with what they thought was hysterical brilliance and created a film that presents itself as an epic masterpiece of the form the same way Lean presents DOCTOR ZHIVAGO as a sound answer to his truly spectacular LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. SOME LIKE IT HOT not only could have used an editor after the fact, but should have had one in the conceptual and writing stages as Diamond and Wilder were jotting out the script. Look at THE APARTMENT for their supreme comic (more than comic, if you ask me) masterpiece. That film is tight, never drops the ball, only presents what is necessary and never suffers from superfluous over-flow.
Now, I respectfully, submit this as MY REASONINGS on why I absolutely HATE this film.
I ask, kindly, for no big backlash or sour-grapes. I came to Sam’s aid on this one (because he was way too polite to go down a check list of why he doesn’t like the film) because I (and he) honestly felt that something needed to be said and because we both feel that a richer and more analytical discourse could be had with varied opinions rather than just an all-out love fest for the film. I respect and admire those that love this film like it was one of their own children and I WISH that I coud share in their admiration. Perhaps, it’s a flaw in the way I am seeing SOME LIKE IT HOT, but I just don’t see what all the hub-bub is about. Frankly, I have always preferred VICTOR/VICTORIA or LA CAGE AU FOLLES as the supreme cross-dressing farce but, hey, that’s me…
That said, I will admit completely that John Greco has written a very good essay on this film and one that, definately, shows the subject of the essay alot of detailed love for it….
Dennis….to complain that a farce has a situation that is too unbelievable is a rather odd complaint. Of course it’s unbelievable! So is every Shakespeare comedy! Do you believe we’re supposed to believe it? I don’t! We’re not supposed to. This goes with the territory of farces. I do actually think you’re viewing it from the wrong perspecive if you want to enjoy it. Also to compare it to The Apartment is comparing very different modes of comedy.
JON-I agree that it’s an unbelievable situation and I am willing to dive into it as a farce and suspend belief. However, like TOOTSIE is unbelievable, at least Hoffman comes off as a woman convincingly enough that you can understand why these people are mistaking him for a girl. At no time in SOME LIKE IT HOT are the “girls” ever convincing enough to make me, or anyone else, believe that this hijinx could come off. Look at the BIRDCAGE… Like the film or not, Nathan Lane pulls off the drag so well that you can almost believe why the senator and his wife buy the illusion. Lemmon and Curtis, while funny, never convince me enough that I can believe that the other characters in the film can make such a blunder concievable. The kicker of the whole thing is that the gangsters, hard bitten realists in the film, fall for it as easily as the whacked-out Joe E. Brown.
The comparison of this film to THE APARTMENT is just an illustratioon to show how one film works, in my opinion, and the strengths of Diamond and Wilder as crackerjack writers, and one that doesn’t. Wilder and Diamond were always best, in my view, when they tainted comedy with harsh reality.
The believability factor, JON, while a problem with me, is, in fact, NOT the biggest detriment to the film. Fact is, it’s the severe length of the film, almost 2 hours and ten minutes, that I feel does it in. The back and forth between Curtis and Lemmon, fighting off the wiles of Joe E. Brown, Curtis trying to corral Lemmon and woo Marilyn Monroe at the same time, and the sub-plot with the gangsters, for me, comes off like a dump-truck loaded with dildos turning over next to a home for wayward girls. The film is too complicated to come off as a completely successful farce for me and I am often moaning by the half way mark. I feel that if some of the sub-plots had been chopped down and some of the characters removed completely, we would have gotten a tighter, laugh a minute riot. Instead, the film, in it’s curent form, is a jumble so confusing and straining that I give up after the first 45 minutes.
Trust me. I have TRIED on many occasions to give it another go, but I find myself getting a headache every time I go around it again…
To each his own. You guys and gals LOVE this film. I only put my views on display here on the thread to give the analysis a different perspective and to point out that the film does, INDEED, have it’s detractors…
Dennis….I think it’s the exact reason that these guys should not pull this off….that makes it so ridiculously funny to me. There’s no way that everyone should believe them….yet they do and that’s why it’s funny. Tootsie is more of a comedy with a message anyway…so it needs to be slightly more believable. Your complaint of it being too long is of course due to the fact that you’re already bored with it after 45 minutes. Any film that one is bored with is too long.
But, that’s just the thing, JON, I HAVE given it a few shots and still find it boring. I have sat through the entire running time while fresh and alert and, still, the film bores me to tears…
If I had NEVER given the film a good go around, then I’d say, sure, you are right and it’s just my stamina or that I might not be into the farce genre. However, I find VICTOR/VICTORIA (also a farce in the same vein as SLIH) to be wildly entertaining and endearing (and Julie Andrews never convinced me for a minute that she was a guy or, at the very least, a very effeminate, twink), and THE BIRDCAGE to be a laugh-out-loud, joke-a-minute riot…
So, what’s my REAL damage here????
I don’t know… I just don’t get it and I never thought SOME LIKE IT HOT was that funny…
Dennis, I’m fine with your not caring for the movie, but I do want to defend Monroe’s intellect and acting ability. Although many of her characters were the “dumb blonde,” she was no dummy. And she also has turned in some good performances. And, for what it’s worth, Arthur Miller, her hubbie at the time, strongly encouraged Monroe to take on the role of Sugar Cane, so he must’ve seen something in the script.
But Dennis like I said, it’s boring and too long to you because you don’t like it. Any film that one doesn’t like is too long. If you were into the plot like the rest of us, you wouldn’t complain that it’s too long. Saying you don’t like it is enough…complaining it’s too long is redundant actually.
Dennis, I know you dislike me and I can take it (hell, half the people at this site feel the same way), but to refer to Monroe as a “cum-dumpster”….well, the ghost of the lovely, troubled Miss Monroe deserves an apology.
Mark—
I have spoken to Dennis directly, and I assure you he is cool with you. He recognizes the value of your candor, and usually sees where you are coming from. The site would be devastated if you were to lose interest, and I enjoy the various divergences, all for the common good. In this instance I know Dennis is spouting off some serious frustrtion for this film and it’s reputation.
Sam — Oh, I always read every word Dennis writes. He’s a fine writer and a great stimulant for getting the creative juices flowing. It just comes down to a difference in tastes, that’s all. Not good taste or bad taste, not right or wrong, just different.
And if he abhors ‘Some Like It Hot’, whatever…I just thought his comments on Monroe verged on the harsh and ad hominem…(I’ve been guilty of this, too, and I’m trying to tame myself). lol
Sam,
Comedy is a strange thing. As has been said what one person finds funny another does not. I am well aware of your “dislike” for this film, we have discussed before, All is forgiven (LOL), and from what I have read and his own remarks below Dennis is to say the least not a fan either. Maybe it is the water in NJ.?
Haha Sam. This is a highly amusing response! However, as far as boring goes, I do find that sex is one of the LEAST boring things on this planet!
hahaha John! Can’t argue with you on the sex comment for some obvious reasons, but my issues were on other aspects of the film. But I know I am out of it here.
Depends on who you’re having it with.
IN MY CASE, with the exception of my college years, I find sex, these days, taking a back seat to things like napping, watching TV, waiting for paint to dry and producing an admirable bowel movement…
Dennis though we disagree on SOME LIKE IT HOT I know we always have the Woodsman!
Whoa Dennis…….your standards have lowered pretty far.
No, I know what you mean. I find the film more amusing than you do, but as I noted again it just never leaps to mind when listing great films. I think maybe the first time I saw it I didn’t find it particularly hilarious either, although I recall many scenes with relish. But I certainly would not be joining any pitchfork brigade against you and Dennis!
I definitely prefer The Apartment.
hahahah Joel! I appreciate that promise to refrain from serious retaliation!!!
I do also prefer THE APARTMENT as you, Dennis and Maurizio do by quite a distance.
Yes The Apartment is clearly a better film regardless of the differences in comedy between the two Wilder’s. Either way I rather not rain on other people’s parade with SLIH. It’s elevated perch in the genre seems somewhat excessive, but overall I like it well enough.
I think maybe the breaking point here is does great comedy = great film (although the fact that Sam doesn’t find it funny means that’s not exclusively the issue). I find for myself, I include Annie Hall, Big Lebowski, and a lot of the Chaplins, Keatons, etc. on great-films lists because they have artistic ambitions outside of making us laugh. Not that there’s anything wrong with just making us laugh, but I tend to put that it in a different category.
Obviously Some Like It Hot is quality filmmaking but compared to Apartment it’s less formally inventive, thematically less ambitious, less humanist (it’s a broad farce rather than a serio-comedy, which many of the comedies that do make my and others’ cuts end up being, fairly or not), and its conceit, while clever, is not as original or provocative as Apartment’s. Yet a lot of people feel it’s much funnier.
Anyway, this is something that has struck me from the beginning of the comedy countdown and why I never submitted a ballot. To me there’s a difference between “greatest comedies” and “greatest films that happen to be comedies” and I’m not sure how to negotiate between the two categories. Heck, the film I’m writing – or rather, not writing (you’ll see) – up next week I find to be one of Chaplin’s most fascinating pictures, but actually the one that makes me laugh the least! If gut-wrenching laughter was the sole criterion, I’d be voting a lot of stuff that would make more refined sensibilities gag but funny is funny, and oh so subjective…
Agreed, MAURIZIO!!!!
I have said my peace on this film and applauders can go about there business now… I will say, however, that I too agree that the elevated reputation of SOME LIKE IT HOT hasd always perplexed me and rank it in the bottom tier of the Wilder canon…
Dennis WILDER list:
1. SUNSET BOULEVARD
2. THE APARTMENT
3. ACE IN THE HOLE
4. DOUBLE INDEMNITY
5. THE LOST WEEKEND
6. SOME LIKE IT HOT
7. IRMA LA DEUCE
8. ONE TWO THREE
but…
Joel, what does your thinking say about a film that is cinematically and artistically proficient and also turns out to be achingly funny?
I am floored by laughter with films like THE BIG LEBOWSKI, yet many people complain of it having narrative problems. Alot of people laugh out loud at THE PRODUCERS, but many complain that it’s visual aura leaves something to be desired.
Then you get something like ANNIE HALL, and you know I think it is the major game-changer in comedy, and it’s ripe with artistic daring, cinematic elegance and is still balls to the floor hysterical and puts everything, including the kitchen sink, into it to have you gasping for air before the end credits role.
I think we make allowances for comedy as most of us think of it as the “lesser” genre when compaired to drama, or the epic form. It’s always seen as the bastard child of cinematics and never taken as seriously, from an artistic point, than the others genres. Most critics seem to brush comedies to the side when they evaluate the best of a film year, and the award know-it-all’s seem to, specifically, shun comedies unless they have something really special on their hands (as they did with ANNIE HALL in 1977 and HANNAH AND HER SISTERS in 1986). Very few comedy directors are elevated to the master status of the great directors (Chaplin, Keaton, Wilder, and Woody Allen would be the rare exceptions, and I don’t see Wilder so much a comedy director, per say, except that he HAS made a few funny films along the way).
I guess what I’m saying is all other genres you can judge with a broadly similar standard. Yes, in horror films we’re looking for certain qualities vs. noirs, same goes for sci-fis vs. westerns but to a certain degree what ‘works’ in the film from an artistic standpoint is going to be similar: whether it takes place on the range or in outer space, the film will be judged by how compelling the characters and themes are, how stylish the formal aspects, how well the performances and direction connect with us emotionally, etc. You can even have a horror film that isn’t very scary and gets praised as a great film for other reasons, while the vice-versa (a horror film that scares the pants off of you but isn’t much good otherwise) might be enjoyed but dismissed as a guilty pleasure. Only in the comedy genre does a rogue element explode the usual criterion so completely. If we laugh, the film will get a pass for everything else.
I kind of suspect comedy and filmmaking are separate art forms, which sometimes overlap. It would be like judging a documentary as great purely because it includes great artworks on the wall which are lingered over, or judging a musical as great PURELY on the basis of the music (rather than, say, how stylishly the dance sequences are pulled off, or anything else that is about HOW the music is presented not just WHAT music is presented). For a great film that happens to be a comedy, we could admire or enjoy the film even if we didn’t laugh. For a great comedy that is judged purely on the basis of laughter, the film form is simply a carrier for the humor: I might enjoy such a movie immensely, but it isn’t BECAUSE it’s a movie, anymore than I enjoy a letter BECAUSE it came in the mail.
I am stating this in extreme, slightly exaggerated form to make a point, but I think the point is true. What I couldn’t figure out enough to participate here is am I judging films based on their greatness as movies, incidental to they’re being comedies, or am I judging films based on their ability to laugh, at which point limiting it to films (and not just combining it with comedy concert recordings, SNL skits, or even live stand-up routines) seems almost arbitrary. So great films which happen to be comedies, or great comedies which happen to be films?
Sorry if none of that makes any sense, haha. I probably said the same time three times in slightly different ways. It’s late…
Joel,
I have brought up this same question before….are we ranking the best films that happen to be comedies….or are we ranking the best comedies? IMO, this list comprises both….and my own ballot was a compromise and balance of the two. I had this issue going way back. If someone had me rank the best films that are comedies….I would have made a very different list. As it stands I had Dumb and Dumber and Clerks on the same list as Chaplin and Keaton. I think the ability to make one laugh holds artistic merit in and of itself, though. I wouldn’t argue that The Apartment is not a better film than Some Like it Hot. But, I also wouldn’t argue that The Apartment is the better comedy.
I think it does too, but of a separate kind than other “cinematic” qualities perhaps. At any rate, the debate is fairly academic but it makes me glad I did not cast a ballot and can just be a spectator & commentator.
Sam, you are not alone on this. I used to think I was the only one that didn’t appreciate this film. But I see there are others
Sachin, I do actually recall you not caring for this from another thread! I know the yay-sayers dominate to the extreme, but it’s gratifying to know that I may not be losing my mind, and that there is a taste factor in this equation. Thanks so much my friend for the reminder.
A great post, John!
I feel pretty much the same way about SOME LIKE IT HOT – it never gets old for me. I’ve watched it so many times that I can do long stretches of dialogue along with the actors, and yet I still laugh my ass off at the following moments:
Joe: You can’t marry Osgood!
Jerry: (in total uncopmrehending bewilderment): You think he’s too old for me?
and
Osgood: (grinning wildly at Daphne’s rush to board his boat for the final getaway scene); She’s so eager!!!
I like that you give Tony Curtis his due, but that performance by Jack Lemmon can’t help but overshadow Curtis’ work. I think that may still stand as the finest comedy performance of the sound era.
Thanks Pat,
the great lines just keep coming, don’t they? Lemmon does give one of the greatest peformance of th sound era, I agree. Unfortunately, for Curitis, he has been overshadowed because of this but he does deserve his own accolades!
Great review for one of my favorite movies. And it’s nice to know I wasn’t the only kid recording movies on audio tape by sitting in front of the TV set holding a mic up to the speaker. My first was “The Wizard of Oz.”
thanks Ann and wow! I thought I was the only kid recording stuff like that. I did a couple of other films and I the Dick Van Dyke TV show which I loved.
Farce of a high order and I never tire of it, even after a dozen or more viewings. I agree with Pat — Lemmon’s maniacal performance may be the funniest of the sound era.
Jon, great review full of interesting tidbits. I never knew Crist (‘The Private Eye, the Cowboy and the Very Naked Girl’) was shocked by the film’s “risque” humor, or that it was banned in Kansas! Red states have no sense of humor, I guess.
Thanks Mark!. Like you I never tire of watching it.
It’s ages since I’ve seen this one, but I do love it, especially Jack Lemmon’s performance. Enjoyed this posting a lot, John.
Thanks as always Judy!
Astounding essay by John Greco, whose personal investment in the film is formidable. I laughed far more than Sam and Dennis, but not as much as those making claim it’s one of the best comedies. I’m a fence sitter until another viewing. Lemmon is great though.