Skip to main content

My whole family are private detectives.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith
(1941)

(SPOILERS) Hitch pretty much dismissed this one with a wave of the jowl; he made it as a favour to Carole Lombard, so he told Truffaut. Perhaps a slight embroidery, since RKO records apparently show he actively pursued the project. Either way, it’s an appealingly light confection, unfairly neglected in some quarters, perhaps because it doesn’t feel thoroughly Hitchcockian at any point, even for a moment or two. Lombard and Robert Montgomery have terrific chemistry, and if Mr. & Mrs. Smith rarely elicits the laughs associated with a peak-period screwball, it bubbles along very nicely.

Of its stylistic inconspicuousness, the director commented that he essentially treated Norman Krasna’s screenplay as gospel (“Since I really didn’t understand the type of people who were portrayed in the film, all I did was to photograph the scenes as written”). It’s thus unsurprising he didn’t look back on it fondly, since such an approach was anathema to him. He might have been keener on it in retrospect had first choice of leading man Cary Grant been available. Nevertheless, the director’s light comic touch is a virtue, and I’d argue the playfulness here works better than the later, more esteemed To Catch a Thief or the less esteemed The Trouble with Harry.

Anything overtly risqué about the set-up, in which Ann and David Smith learn that, due to a quirk of jurisdiction, their three-year marriage is invalid, is quickly thrown into relief by the assurance that it still counts as common law. Unfortunately for David, his admission that, should he get to live it all again, he’d stay single is compounded by his failure to own up regarding the legal loophole to his already apprised now non-wife. Ann throws him out, repeatedly, and embarks on a tentative romance with David’s business partner (in law) Jeff Custer (Gene Raymond). Naturally, David’s escalating attempts to get back with her and Ann’s corresponding rebuffs eventually lead to reconciliation (via an amusing shot of her skis, lodged above her head, crossing as David bends over to kiss her).

There’s a procession of gently antagonistic vignettes along the way, offering embarrassment to one or both partners. David causes a scene at the department store where Ann has just been taken on (courtesy of an older proprietor who has designs on her), so losing her a job. At the Florida Club, David finds himself with a decidedly uncultivated date, and his attempt to escape by giving himself a nosebleed only makes his situation worse. All of which is observed by Ann, on a date with Jeff. They in turn get stuck on a ride, in a downpour, at the 1939 New York World’s Fair.

It looks as if Jeff has been earmarked as a thoroughly disreputable louse during the early stages, opportunistically inveigling himself with Ann as soon as he gets a chance and so betraying the trust of his friend and partner. But come the mid-section, Raymond is doing sterling work in nearly stealing our sympathies and disrupting our wish to see the couple reunited. Developing a cold due to the time spent enduring the elements, teetotal Jeff is forced to drink strictly medicinal liquor by Ann, by way of an amusing temperance-league anecdote (“That’s what corn crinkles do to the lining of your stomach”).

When the now inebriated Jeff confesses “My only fear is that I may not act like a gentleman”, it’s evident that, while he may not have gone about things very nobly, his intentions are honourable. Several amusing scenes follow featuring his increasingly alarmed parents (Philip Merivale and Lucile Watson), as David, continually referencing their former relationship, does everything within his power to make it look as if Ann is a bit of a tramp (“What kind of white trash have you taken up with?” implores Jeff’s father). I also wondered if a gay coding might have been intended for Jeff, on account of “It’s the most tasteful man’s bedroom I’ve ever seen”, his overtly empathic desire to see true love win through and Ann’s insistence that he hold David’s hand.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith concludes in snowy Lake Placid, with David showing up at Jeff and Ann’s romantic retreat and feigning illness (“I will never forget you in that little blue dress” he informs Jeff “deliriously”). At one point, David pretends he’s a detective to a cabby he’s utilising to follow Ann around; perhaps if there’d been an actual detective element to this, à la The Thin Man, the results would have satisfied Hitch more. As it was, it would be more than a decade before he ventured back into the arena of frothier fare. A shame, as it may not foreground his auteurishness, but Mr. & Mrs. Smith is an underrated romcom.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.