Skip to main content

If you're going to be rude to my daughter, you might at least take your hat off!

My Man Godfrey
(1936)

(SPOILERS) William Powell deserves more credit than he gets as one of the all-time most watchable movie stars. My Man Godfrey garnered him his second of three Best Actor nominations, teaming him (at his own behest) with ex-wife Carole Lombard. A hugely entertaining screwball comedy, it duly achieved the singular feat of being nominated for all four acting Oscars (of which it was the first), and writing and directing. But not Best Picture.

Notable, as this was a year with ten Best Picture nominees, many of which have faded into obscurity; Mr Deeds Goes to Town (which didn’t win), is probably the highest profile today, and Powell starred in another screwball that did get nominated, Libelled Lady. My Man Godfrey’s plot is typically high concept, whereby Lombard’s privileged socialite Irene Bullock employs Powell’s homeless Godfrey as a butler after enlisting him in a scavenger hunt where she has to find a “forgotten man”. Godfrey only agrees to present himself as a hunt item in order to put one over on Irene’s obnoxious sister Cornelia (Gail Patrick), and because “I was curious to see how a bunch of empty-headed nitwits conducted themselves” (the sisters’ mother Angelica, Alice Brady, is also part of the hunt, and has proudly procured a goat).

Presented with the job offer, he readily accepts, although the assumption that anyone untrained can buttle, something that would surely meet with Jeeves’ opprobrium, goes unchallenged. It’s clear from the outset that Irene, whom Lombard imbues with a marvellously woozy, breathless energy, is smitten with Godfrey. And that, being in a position calling for decorum and propriety, he will have to spurn the advances of the spirited girl (Irene is apparently supposed to be teenager, but one never gets the sense Lombard is playing less than she is, mid-twenties).

At the outset – as Pauline Kael also notes – there’s a feeling this might be intended as a satire on class and privilege, the poor seen as amusing curios by the wealthy. Maybe that was an element in Eric Hatch’s 1935 novel 1101 Park Avenue, on which My Man Godfrey is based and for which he receives a co-writing credit (along with sometime Marx Brothers writer Morrie Ryskind), but it quickly falls away. Still, there are nominal elements commenting on the fleetingness of amassing earthly possessions; Eugene Pallette’s patriarch Alexander Bullock loses all his money at the end, so it’s fortunate Godfrey had the vision to take precautionary measures. There’s also the rejuvenation of the down-at-heel; in a rather facile move, Godfrey turns the spot of his erstwhile homeless home Hooverville into The Dump, a nightclub, thus creating jobs and lodging for fifty people.

Things might have been different had there been an actual class element rather than a superficial nod to the same. We discover that Godfrey himself comes from a privileged background; a torrid love affair left him suicidal, only to discover a different outlook among the homeless. I can see why the revelation element was appealing (a man with a secret), but the actual motivation feels very thin. I even wondered if there was consideration to Godfrey having lost all his money in the Crash, but that might have been hewing a bit too close to reality.

Nevertheless, Powell traversing a household of nuts – aside from Alexander, who feels much the same way, and maid Molly (Jean Dixon) who is soon as smitten with Godfrey as Irene – offers pots of comedy gold. His chemistry with Lombard is fantastic (“He’s the first thing she’s shown any affection for since her Pomeranian died”), and his interactions with the various members of the household, in particular Brady as the batty mum and Cornelia oozing bile, are highly enjoyable. At one point, haughty Cornelia, assuming she can wrap him round her little finger, asks what he really thinks of her, and he calls her a Park Avenue brat. Which leads to Powell relishing a dive an elaborate drunk routine and Cornelia attempting to finger Godfrey for some stolen pearls.

The pleasure of this sort of movie is that every character has something interesting going on, even if it’s no more than peculiar quirks. Such as Angelica’s protégée Carlo, who is essentially there to stuff his face whenever he can and do an alarming gorilla impersonation. Director Gregory La Cava ensures My Man Godfrey is too light and frothy to carry a strong message, but Powell makes his delivery of the positives his stay with the family have given him count. And being a screwball, it makes sure that the guy is only in control so far; he’s too blinkered to admit to love, so it takes Lombard showing up at The Dump, minister in tow, to make him tie the knot.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism