Skip to main content

I want to see what love looks like when it’s triumphant. I haven’t had a good laugh in a week.

It Happened One Night
(1934)

(SPOILERS) In any romantic comedy worth its salt, you need to be rooting for both leads to end up together. That’s why, while each has its individual pleasures – and one is an unchallenged classic in every other department – the triptych of Andie McDowell ‘90s romcoms (Green Card, Groundhog Day and Four Weddings and a Funeral) fail on that score; she doesn’t elicit any degree of investment (ironically, she’s much better as a knockabout nun doing a dolphin impression in Hudson Hawk). Even Hanks and Ryan in Sleepless in Seattle are merely likeable; you can’t get that caught up if there aren’t any sparks flying (Crystal and Ryan, though). It Happened One Night has sparks in spades, the back and forth between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert ensuring it’s as vital and versatile today as it was 85 years ago.

Night, of course, shares the rarefied plane of taking the five top Academy Awards with only two other films (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and The Silence of the Lambs), and one could cogently argue that it’s less attention grabbing, and thus less likely material for such a feat, than either of those. What it has though, courtesy of its stars, director Frank Capra and screenwriter Robert Riskin (his fifth of thirteen collaborations with Capra), is a deceptively light, assured touch. It’s in the nature of the romcom that the Academy is shy of deeming them truly worthy (besides The Apartment and Annie Hall – Pauline Kael called Nightthe Annie Hall of its day – before the invention of anxiety” – you have to start stretching your genre boundaries), with the consequence that those that have been recognised actually are genuinely very good, almost as if even the Academy had to sit up and take notice.

Peter Warne: Now, that’s my whole plot in a nutshell. A simple story for simple people.

The main characters may sound like clichéd types on paper – during a road trip to NYC, a pampered, spoiled heiress on the run falls in with hard-drinking, quip-happy journalist, such that the friction turns to affection as love gradually blossoms – because they are, but Capra and Riskin make that a virtue; just setting the proceedings in the world of the media savvy means the text is about as self-referential as it gets without breaking the fourth wall, the sale of the story of their story becoming a major plot point.

What really makes Night sing, though, is the dazzling chemistry between Gable and Colbert. The role was, and would remain, something of an exception for the former (Capra commented “He was never able to play that kind of character except in that one film. They had him playing these big, huff-and-puff he-man lovers, but he was not that kind of guy… he just wanted to play Clark Gable, the way the was in It Happened One Night, and it’s too bad they didn’t let him keep up with that” – yet the character is so iconic, it’s rumoured to have influenced the creation of Bugs Bunny). We’re more familiar with Cary Grant, say, in this kind of role, and if Gable isn’t, perhaps, an entirely convincing souse, he lends the material a rugged earthiness that effectively contrasts with Grant’s smoother portraits and is perfect as a counter to Colbert’s privileged remove. Like Grant, though, Gable can get away with a line like “What she needs is a guy that would take a sock at her once a day, whether it’s coming to her or not” and not make us think he really means it.

Colbert’s part of Ellie Andrews requires more heavy lifting by virtue of it being naturally less sympathetic – “the brat” – but she’s utterly captivating and beguiling, able to go round for round with Gable’s Peter Warne and show him up when he least expects it (“There’s a brain behind that face of yours, isn’t there?”). That said, much of the humour derives from Ellie taking offence, be it at Warne or someone else on the journey, the latter usually to Peter’s amusement (“When a cold mama gets hot, boy how she sizzles!” comments Roscoe Karns’ lascivious bus passenger).

Peter Warne: Why didn’t you take off all your clothes? You could have stopped forty cars.
Ellie Andrews: Oh, I’ll remember that when we need forty cars.

But there’s also the delight taken in the risqué, pushing gently against the boundaries of taste and decency in a (just) Pre-Hays Code environment. The odd couple pose as husband and wife, erecting “the walls of Jericho” (a blanket hung on a rope) between their beds to maintain decorum, and Peter baits Ellie by undressing in front of her (“Now, uh, according to Hoyle, after that, the, uh, pants should be next”).

But he’s still a very proper drunk scoundrel. When he unknowingly seduces her with romantic poetry and she throws herself at him (“Take me with you, Peter. Take me to your island!”) he sends her back to bed, later informing her “I don’t make it a policy to go running around with married women”. Once we’re into the territory of legal wedlock, however, the final verbal play of the trumpet needed to demolish the walls is the equivalent of Hitchcock’s train going into a tunnel at the end of North by Northwest. And, lest we forget, Colbert had already bathed in asses’ milk a couple of years previously in The Sign of the Cross, so she had a degree of sex siren cachet that was only emphasised by – in the film’s justifiably most famous scene – her flashing her stockinged leg as a hitch-hiking aid when Peter’s method (“Keep your eye on this thumb, baby, and see”) singularly fails.

This being Capra, while we’re served a light and effervescent romantic bauble, Night isn’t wholly divorced from the real world, in particular the Great Depression that Colbert’s privileged Ellie has hitherto been protected from, as she discovers when she has to stand in line to take a shower (I’m not sure that she comes away really liking it is the right kind of positive message, though). This is underlined by the flying trapeze sing-song camaraderie of the bus journey, and the mother who passes out, much to her son’s concern (“We ain’t ate nothing since yesterday”).

Capra isn’t particularly looking to find villains, though. The media and finance are generally not in the best of repute, and are initially tarred with a brush in that regard; Ellie’s father Alexander (Walter Connolly) is a super-rich Wall Street banker, and would usually be the bad guy who objects to his daughter’s match. As a devout Republican, though, Capra might have found such an obvious target a thorny one to come to grips with. Instead, it turns out dad’s right, and that playboy pilot King Westley (Jameson Thomas), the type who captivates the hearts and aspirations of the impoverished, is the cynical one, someone who knows when he’s hit the jackpot financially. Alexander is duly held up as a bad example by Peter (“It’s a matter of principle. Something you probably wouldn’t understand”), but he only really wants his daughter’s happiness and is more than delighted to be rid of Westley, even to the extent of furnishing him with a sizeable cheque when Ellie leaves him at the altar (“What happened? I haven’t the faintest idea”).

Joe Gordon: Agnes, get me a doctor. I’m going to have a nervous breakdown.

So too Peter’s boss Joe (Charles C Wilson), functioning as the equally tender-hearted mentor figure, but to Peter; set up as hard and overbearing – and only after that big story, regardless of the consequences – he ends up imparting pearls of wisdom when the young couple need them most.

Naturally, last-minute complications are required to step in the way of true love winning out too smoothly, thus making the eventual reuniting of lovers that much sweeter. Peter’s request to meet with Alexander over a “financial matter” relating to his daughter is an excellent shorthand means of announcing his purity of motive; this is first interpreted as characterising him as the gold-digger King Westley actually is, but then, when it’s revealed he’s only delivering Alexander a bill for $39.60 for expenses, he’s instantly confirmed him as more than alright in the parent’s books, with no further hoops to have to jump through to prove himself. It’s curious, though, that we don’t actually see the happy couple together after Ellie flees the ceremony; everything subsequent is second hand, be it via Andrews or the couple who own the motor court.

Colbert famously didn’t want to do the movie, and, in the first instance, didn’t have very high opinions of it after the fact either (“I just finished the worst picture in the world”). It also didn’t break out with the public until after its initial run; like The Silence of the Lambs, Night won Best Picture a full year after its first release, a relative rarity, with contenders tending to be jammed into the year-end awards season stage. As for Capra, he was a film away from augmenting his filmmaking outlook, towards producing “fantasies of goodwill”; that might be another reason why, freed from the burden of overt moralising themes or intent, It Happened One Night remains so accessible. A simple story for simple people, but deliriously witty and sharp with it.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…