Skip to main content

I especially care for the SPLUNK!

How to Murder Your Wife
(1965)

(SPOILERS) I feel it’s probably necessary to present to the jury the case for the defence: that it really is okay to like How to Murder Your Wife, despite the rampant sexism, misogyny and chauvinism. I mean, after all, it’s a very, very silly movie. A brazen example of a “You’d never get away with it now” cheeky wish-fulfilment fantasy with a jet-black streak that can only truly be labelled offensive if you take its characters’ positions literally. Well, okay. No. It is offensive, but it’s also clearly absurdist: it knows it’s being provocative (see the poster). The finale revolves around the idea that all married men – all of whom are harmless chumps, forced into servitude once the knot has been tied – would wipe their spouse’s out of existence if they could, at the press of a button. So the hyperbole that “The court scene turns into one of the most appalling scenes since the veneration of the KKK in Birth of a Nation” is almost as funny as the film itself. That said, George Axelrod’s screenplay, while frequently sharp in its satire, is also at times guilty of failing to put in sufficient effort.

Charles: Look at us, the last stronghold of gracious living in a world gone mad. Mad!

This is not a balanced affair like The War of the Roses (1989); Virna Lisi’s Mrs Ford – she rather pointedly lacks a first name – has no character to speak of aside from being an Italian sex bomb who bursts from a wedding cake and vies for her husband’s affections by offering him food (which makes him fat) or sex (which enfeebles him, per defocusing zooms). Lisi has a strong presence, and as a caricature – everyone in the film is a caricature, barring perhaps Lemmon, who is simply fostered certain staunch-bachelor traits – she makes Mrs Ford vibrant and appealing. However, there’s no doubting that, when Stanley Ford (Jack Lemmon) goes back to her at the end – giving the lie to his presentation to the jury – it isn’t because he’s fallen in love in any discernible way. Rather, it’s because in his mind’s eye he sees her lying undressed under a bedsheet. Which is how he actually sees her at the end (she, meanwhile, takes him back without a murmur, because she’s a sex object).

Stanley has a carefully arranged, only-in-the-movies lifestyle. He’s a magnificently paid newspaper comic strip cartoonist, such that he has his own luxury townhouse, his own butler (I mean, I say), takes daily trips to the gym and is a member of an exclusive club, all while observing a strict no-sustained-romantic-entanglements policy. He’s a kind of mash up of PG Wodehouse – like a more capable, sexually active Bertie Wooster – and Bond – his fantasy-life alter ego as Bash Brannigan.

So the rude intrusion on this routine’s very foundations – with consequent sleeplessness, burgeoning waistline, his comic strip hero reduced to a laughing stock – represents the most unconscionable act imaginable. Stanley’s position is entirely unjustified – of course, it is – but the emphasis is on his lack of adjustment to the loss of his sacrosanct routine. The problem with the finale isn’t really that Stanley posits the suggestion (because it’s not true, right? Every husband doesn’t secretly want to get rid of his wife. Does he?) No, it’s that structurally Axelrod – previously of The Manchurian Candidate (1962) and Mickey Rooney’s racist caricature in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) – has failed to make the most of his tale’s potential.

We know Stanley never had any intention of killing Mrs Ford, and we know he didn’t kill her (while anyone reading the comic strip would presumably conclude that neither did Bash Brannigan, since he buys a shop mannequin; therefore, the jury would also conclude this “evidence” didn’t wash, if Stanley’s lawyer was any kind of lawyer, but then there’d be no third act). This was the opportunity to create some “did-he, didn’t he?” tension, but How to Murder Your Wife rather lets the air out of the balloon by making his fantasy an obvious fiction; the trial is frequently funny, but it fails to pay off the observational comedy hitherto.

Yes, the daydream of life being so much better if you could wish your wife all away is effectively delivered – husbands lose their essential essence once dominated by a wife – resulting in a unison of agreement (from judge and an all-male jury). Except that… they don’t really agree, in a grass is always greener sense. Such that Stanley has no doubts about what he wants when he discovers his wife has returned. Stanley has, of course, concentrated so hard on what he is losing that he has been unaware of what he is gaining – in crude terms, a doting beauty who makes magnificent feasts and fixes any situation between them by plying him with sex (and wants to change the décor, buys a snappy dog, watches TV all night, makes a mess of the bathroom…)

Axelrod’s real payoff in this scene isn’t the newlyweds reunited. Rather, it’s Harold (Eddie Mayehoff), Stanley’s buddy and lawyer, allowed his worm-has-turned moment as he puts wife Edna (Claire Trevor) in her place (“Shut up, you old bat!”) It’s offered as a genuinely triumphant moment (the like of which we won’t see again until Robert Duvall lays down the law in 1993's Falling Down).

It’s a development that provides easy cathartic laughs, with even the judge telling Edna to shut up. And yet, it doesn’t fit with our previous picture of Edna; she certainly knows how to get her way, but she hasn’t been marked her out as a vile harridan entirely ruining his existence. As such, the battle-of-the-sexes humour is more balanced earlier in the movie, as Edna educates Mrs Ford in preventing husbands from getting away with doing exactly what they want, to Harold’s befuddlement. This includes accusing him of having conversations he hasn’t had; he’s also so trained, he’ll parrot Edna’s opinions as his own to Stanley. And then there’s Stanley’s horror when Mrs Ford is incited to go to his men’s club, leading to his expulsion – in 123 years, not one woman of any description has set foot on the premises.

Another consequence of Axelrod’s structure is that Terry-Thomas – the simply splendid Terry-Thomas – is side-lined for much of the later proceedings, butler Charles having been so instrumental in establishing the picture’s heightened norm. Stanley, he announces at the outset, has never married: “He is, therefore, a completely happy man”. Like Jeeves, the news of nuptials necessitates a tendering of resignation. Charles’ horror at Mrs Ford’s intrusion on first “his” perfect abode, and then on the kitchen, is priceless. It isn’t until the courtroom that he is given another memorable scene, unable to contain his joy at the realisation his master really “did” murder his wife (“Oh, what a silly, silly ninny I was not to have seen through it before!”) He doesreceive a masterstroke final scene, though, as the terrible mother-in-law turns out to be a middle-aged, gap-toothed beauty; Charles can only shrug at the inevitability of it all.

Director Richard Quine, ably supported by cinematographer Harry Stradling (who had just won an Oscar, his second, for 1964's My Fair Lady) and infectiously so by composer Neal Hefti, is clearly at his most enthused during the first hour (it’s also the case, if we’re to be brutally honest, that the two-hour movie would have been better served if it had been a bit tighter). We have Terry-Thomas talking to camera, even gesturing for it to follow as he and Lemmon exit the house. Hefti’s score leaps from dashingly jaunty during the photoshoots (for comic strip supporting material) into the romantic strains of a fateful marriage and the change in the Bash Brannigan strip as he transforms from spy into hapless boob.

Stanley: I may take this lying down like that drooling, feeble-minded idiot that I am, but Bash Brannigan will not, I promise you that!

The expedition to arrange Bash’s murder is particularly inspired, involving as it does buying the aforementioned mannequin, along with the most powerful remote-control device in the world and tranquilisers – Alphodexabenzatheropatazelamine, or goofballs – that will have the effect of making the taker go “BRRRRP right up the wall and then Blaaaaap. Right down again” if they’re taken with alcohol (Stanley proceeds to drug first Mrs Ford and then Edna with them at his party). And then, he deposits the dummy in the ingeniously named and onomatopoeically inspired Gloppitta-Gloppitta machine.

Lemmon makes for a highly dependable, elastic lead, very much in the exasperated mode of his mid-50s to mid-60s period – before he got the idea that playing serious was his calling – and he and Terry-Thomas have fine chemistry. Mayehoff, Lisi and Trevor are pitch perfect. If Axelrod can’t sustain his conceit, he’s given all the help he could have asked for to get there. Should How to Murder Your Wife apologise for being outmoded? I think it would only have a case to answer if it weren’t funny (although some will tell you it didn't even pass for comedy in 1965. To which I say: to the Gloppitta-Gloppitta machine with you!) Added to which, it would be doing the makers a gross disservice to suggest they were unaware of the pitch-black, provocative and heightened terrain they were treading.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.