1940s Week: The Philadelphia Story (1940)

Monday, February 15, 2016



Written for 1940s Week hosted by An Old Fashioned Girl. ❤

Instead of focusing on fashion or strictly the era in this post for The Philadelphia Story I decided instead to focus on the characters and the plot. Yes, it's 1940s, and I admit that the guys are gorgeous in their suits, but the story itself is what needs to be discussed. Although I will say that Katharine Hepburn wears one of the most bizarre hats that I've ever seen in her scene in the library. It's just weird.

I am warning everyone ahead of time that this post is a bit of a harsh critique against The Philadelphia Story. So if this movie is one of your favorite classic films of all time, you may want to skip reading my post. I would hate to truly offend anyone, but I also am not going to hide the fact that this movie disturbs me on many levels and that, for me, it's not a comedy.

Go to my Classic Hollywood page to find all my Classic Hollywood reviews!

Fortunately, there are many other films from the 1940s and I've recently discovered that I LOVE Casablanca so I'll be writing on that film sometime this week, so stay tuned. ❤

Back to the post at hand, I've finally done something that I've been meaning to do for the last decade, but held off on doing because I didn't like it the first time I tried it. I've finally finished The Philadelphia Story.

Unfortunately, all I've managed to do is prove to myself that my dislike of a decade ago is justified.

BUT, I also discovered that my appreciation for James Stewart as a versatile and skilled actor is also justified.

Whereas Cary Grant always plays himself in every role I've ever seen him in, Jimmy Stewart proves himself, time and again, to be a character actor of the highest caliber. And, as it stands, he plays the only character in The Philadelphia Story that I genuinely liked, well, apart from Ruth Hussey in a secondary role as Liz Imbrie and little Virginia Weidler as Dinah, Hepburn's younger sister. This is, of course, nothing against Cary Grant as an actor. There is a certain comfort in knowing an actor will always be who you expect him to be, no matter the era or role, and I love Grant for that steadiness.


As for the film itself, are you familiar with it?

If not, the story goes something like this. Rich socialite (Hepburn) has a divorce under her belt (Grant) and is planning to marry a second husband (John Howard) only to have ex-husband show up two days before her wedding with a reporter (Stewart) and a photographer (Hussey) in tow from a local magazine to do a story on the proceedings, all because of blackmail, of course.

This movie is one of the most highly renowned in classic Hollywood history and I'll be hornswaggled if I know why. If you like it, my deepest and most profound apologies to you, but I can't understand it.

The majority of the film is spent with an extremely selfish young lady who has no moral compass whatsoever, and yet three men appear to be crazy in love with her. I suppose I could feel sorry for the poor little rich girl, but I don't, although I am happy to report that she and Grant's character do end up together again at the end of the film. Good because they deserve each other.


Yet even Stewart falls for Hepburn's high-brow attitude, drinks more champagne in a single evening than most people do in a year, and ends up nearly taking Hepburn to bed, a major part of the plot that becomes a big issue. The night before her wedding? I can't imagine why. This film is such a good example of an immoral lifestyle and makes no apologies for it.

I'll give kudos to the screenwriter, Donald Ogden Stewart, for two things. He wrote an extremely sharp, witty screenplay and alluded to illicit sex. I'm sure the daring immorality is what makes The Philadelphia Story so popular, even today. I, on the other hand, prefer to call a horse a horse, so even though Hepburn's and Stewart's characters did NOT actually sleep together, I was a bit amazed the script went as far as it did in intimating they might have. This isn't, after all, A Streetcar Named Desire, which was filmed over a decade later, and even then had to be tempered from the original play.


Yes, the comedic moments, what there were of them, were hilarious. The comebacks are quick and bright and so the dialogue lacked nothing. My sister even laughed, since I pleaded with her to watch it with me, and I didn't expect her to be that entertained. But about halfway through our interest started lagging, my eyes started drooping, and I couldn't believe anyone had paid Cary Grant $137,000 to simply perform as himself, regardless of whether he donated the money to British War Relief or not.

If viewers don't mind an immoral montage of modern marriage in 1940, then I'm sure The Philadelphia Story will delight. At least in A Streetcar Named Desire, immoral behavior is still immoral behavior and is supposed to leave a greasy, disgusting feeling in the pit of your stomach. But here we're supposed to gaily laugh and move on as if nothing had happened.


So, overall I consider The Philadelphia Story to be overrated and apparently a desperate attempt made by Katharine Hepburn to redeem her flagging career since she'd delivered several box office bombs prior to The Philadelphia Story. Yes, she gives an authentic performance, but I wouldn't wish that character on anyone. The one guy I think she should have married is the moral, upstanding man who was horrified that his bride-to-be may have slept with another man and can't remember. But, of course, he's the one she doesn't choose. Instead, she returns to the man who shoved her to the floor on his way out the door. No thank you.

My takeaway?


Jimmy Stewart is a genius. I loved every element of his performance, start to finish, and I can see why he won Best Actor at the Oscars that year. He deserved it.

As for the movie itself, at least I can say I watched it. And will say, in all honesty, never again. Not even for Jimmy Stewart.
Read More

Happy Valentine's Day!

Sunday, February 14, 2016


Read More

Movie Review: The Meaning of Self-Worth in Sabrina (1954)



A friend of mine mentioned the other day how she's giving up self-criticism for Lent since the season just started. And it got me thinking about the importance of self-worth, which kind of goes hand-in-hand with the concept of self-criticism.

Oh my gosh, when I think of all the hours I've spent doubting my own self-worth, I'm tempted to cringe a little bit. But I don't think I really had a clear vision of what lacking self-worth looks like until I rewatched Sabrina from 1954. If you watch classic movies then you've probably seen it, especially if you love Audrey Hepburn like I do.

But I'll be honest, the film never sat really well with me. Apart from the total miscasting of Humphrey Bogart (who I also love) and William Holden (meh) as Sabrina's love interests, the story itself always gave me a resulting sense of melancholia.
Read More

Period Drama Challenge - January Tag Questions

Thursday, February 11, 2016


Yes, I confess to being a good, ohhhh, 11 days late in responding to this, but better late than not at all with these types of things. Plus, I thought it would be fun, which it was rather!

January Tag Questions:

1. What period dramas did you view in January?

I watched Beyond the Mask and Oliver Twist. Both of which I liked very much.

2. What is your favorite Charles Dickens film adaptation?

Mmm, I'm extremely fond of Little Dorrit with Matthew MacFadyen, but I also love A Muppet Christmas Carol. It's hard to beat Kermit as Bob Cratchit!


3. Would you rather visit Pemberley (Mr. Darcy's residence) or Downton Abbey (Crawley family residence)? Why?

I'd rather visit Downton Abbey simply because Pemberley can be any one of numerous houses depending on the version of Pride & Prejudice that you're watching. But Downton is formidable and stays absolutely the same through the entire series. Plus, it's gorgeous.


4. If you could be any character in a Jane Austen novel for a whole day who would you be and why would you want to be that character?

Surprisingly, I would like to be Emma Woodhouse. I'm not all that fond of her, to be completely honest, but she at least speaks her mind and doesn't really let fear dissuade her from doing something. It would be interesting to be her for a day and just experience the fortitude that must come with knowing one's own mind so completely. It's weird disliking a character somewhat and yet admiring them too.

5. What period dramas are you looking forward to viewing in February 2016?

Mmmm, I haven't actually given it much thought. Probably Murder Rooms and The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Although I am going to watch Risen on the big screen next Thursday, the ONLY night that it's playing in a theater near me. I've already blogged about Risen HERE, if you're curious. ❤
Read More

Period Drama Challenge - Ladyhawke (1985)

Tuesday, February 9, 2016


Written for the Period Drama Challenge hosted by Laurie over at Old-Fashioned Charm. ❤

Ladyhawke (1985, PG13)
starring Matthew Broderick, Rutger Hauer, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Alfred Molina

Just looking at the cover of this movie is making me melt and want to watch it again. And I've already watched it 3 times since the start of 2016! Which, I do admit, is in excess and more than I usually watch it. But I watched the DVD with my family in early January before discovering that it was released on BLU-RAY (can I get an AMEN?!). So I bought the blu-ray, watched it myself, then grabbed my mom and sister and demanded they watch it with me. So I'm halfway 2/3 of the way through it for my 3rd time in under 2 months.

You know those movies that people recommend and you end up either hating or loving? There is no in-between range of emotion? Ladyhawke is one of those. It is undeniably one of the most hauntingly filmed movies I've ever seen, but it's also blessed with one of the absolutely strangest soundtracks that I've ever heard. It makes or breaks the film. You'll see what I mean when I get to that section of this post, but first of all, the plot itself!


❤ The Plot ❤

Ladyhawke is set somewhere in 11th century France, definitely after the Crusades and most assuredly during the feudal system. 

Alarm bells in Aquila clang, announcing the escape of a prisoner from the vile dungeons that belong to the Bishop of Aquila (pretty much the spawn of Satan) who also happens to be an outcast from the established Church.

The aforementioned escapee is Phillipe Gaston, played by none other than the so-cute-it-hurts-to-look-at-him Matthew Broderick. It was 1985, OF COURSE HE WAS CUTE!

Running just so far that he feels safe, but definitely not far enough, Phillipe the Mouse pauses to refresh himself at an outdoor tavern (not that I knew they had those in feudal France).

But he can't just eat. Oh no, he must talk too, which leads to the unveiling of the Bishop's soldiers whose very lives are likely on the line if they don't catch the escaped prisoner.

After all, you can't have an escape-proof dungeon if someone has . . . well, escaped. DUH.

Just as a sword is swinging for Phillipe's jugular, an arrow pierces the hand of the sword-holding knight, having been shot by a mysterious man in black *cue dramatic music for Rutger Hauer's entrance*

Navarre, for that is the name of the dramatic man in black, rescues Phillipe, sort of, depending on your point of view.

I'm not sure you or I would consider it rescuing if you were being chased down by an intimidating man in black riding the world's biggest stallion who also happens to be named Goliath.

Phillipe has literally no choice at this point, but he's already noticed things are a bit on the odd side where Navarre is concerned. After all, who keeps a hawk for a pet and Navarre is decidedly attached to his hawk?

Stopping at a cozy stable run by psycho axe-wielding murderers (no, I'm not kidding), the two men, well boy and man, decide to stop for the night, with Navarre fiercely warning Phillipe to not disturb his slumber or he might take his head off without fully realizing it's him. Yeah, that's comforting.

Out collecting firewood, Phillipe determines to make his escape because, as he puts it, "He wants something from me. I can see it in his eyes. Well, whatever it is, I'm not going to do it. I'm still a young man, you know! I've got prospects!"

An enormous mangy wolf puts in an appearance, chasing Phillipe back to the stable where he can't find Navarre, but manages to grab Navarre's crossbow only to have the arrow snatched away before he can fire at the wolf.

And snatched away by none other than a stunning woman with porcelain skin and piercing blue eyes, cloaked all in black. Yes, it's Michelle Pfeiffer and at her most gorgeous.

As Phillipe watches, she joins the wolf outside, and as he's pondering aloud whether he's dreaming, she calls back calmly, "You are dreaming."

Phillipe panics as any practical person would, crawls up into the loft where he watches the woman and the wolf head into the forest together and proceeds to plead with God, who he talks to every single day, "I've not seen what I've just seen. I do not believe what I believe, Lord! If these are magical or unexplainable matters than I beg you not to make me a part of them."

Are you intrigued yet? If you aren't, you absolutely should be because I've only covered maybe 30 minutes of a 2 hour long movie. Trust me, it gets progressively better!


❤ What Makes Ladyhawke Awesome ❤

Many, many movies, too many to count, take themselves too seriously. They have an agenda, a message to be preached, and they forget that you can have fun at the same time that you're sharing the message.

Ladyhawke is NOT that movie.

Oh no.

You've probably already caught on by Phillipe's quotes that the dialogue for this movie is different. Humor abounds! The dialogue is snappy and just plain fun. Ladyhawke is not one of those looooooong, boring period drama. It is alive and breaths life into the audience with the charisma of its actors and the talent of its screenplay writers.

Now I will say there isn't anything wrong with serious period dramas. They certainly have their place and I love many of them. But I love Ladyhawke because it isn't one of those period dramas. I'm sure it helps that Richard Donner directed seeing as he's the man who brought the world the hilarious Lethal Weapon movies as well as Maverick starring Mel Gibson and James Garner. There's a man who doesn't take life too seriously which made him PERFECT to direct Ladyhawke.
Read More

Read Jack Schaefer's Shane with Hamlette!

Saturday, February 6, 2016

http://theedgeoftheprecipice.blogspot.com/p/shane-read-along-index.html


I'm sure that most fans of classic film have at least watched Shane and while it's been at least 20 years since I've seen it, I am participating in this delightful read-along of the original novel hosted on Hamlette's blog. If you're anything like me you had no idea there even was a novel, but there was, written by a man named Jack Schaefer, and it's quite excellent. Not very long, only 16 chapters and my personal copy is 119 pages. We're going chapter by chapter, uncovering little nuggets and thoughts along the way, and it's delightful. We're up to chapter 10, but it's not too late for you to join in, which I heartily encourage people to do. I'm delighted to admit that I'm enjoying the novel so much since the film never really spoke to me. Of course, I was barely a teenager at my last viewing so I might want to give it another try. ❤
Read More

Book Review: Unleashing Mr. Darcy by Teri Wilson

Unleashing Mr. Darcy by Teri Wilson
Harlequin Publishers
2014

My Rating

❤ Goodreads Synopsis ❤ 

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single woman teetering on the verge of thirty must be in want of a husband.

Not true for Manhattanite Elizabeth Scott. Instead of planning a walk down the aisle, she's crossing the pond with the only companion she needs; her darling dog, Bliss. Caring for a pack of show dogs in England seems the perfect distraction from the scandal that ruined her teaching career, and her reputation, in New York. What she doesn't count on is an unstoppable attraction to billionaire dog breeder Donovan Darcy. The London tycoon's a little bit arrogant, a whole lot sexy, and the chemistry between them is disarming. When passion is finally unleashed, might Elizabeth hope to take home more than a blue ribbon?

(I deliberately chose to NOT write a synopsis because I didn't want to actually take the time for a book that had so much potential and which I ended up disliking so intensely.)

❤ Now, on to the good stuff . . . my opinion. ❤

It is the opinion of this reviewer that Mr. Darcy, the real Mr. Darcy, would denounce Donovan Darcy as a womanizing cad devoid of honor.

The facts are these. Jane Austen's Elizabeth and Darcy were restrained individuals of decorum, Darcy mostly, but Elizabeth certainly. Their relationship focused on that restraint. In Teri Wilson's Unleashing Mr. Darcy the entire story is about breaking restraint, unleashing passion, etc. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it was not a complete and total reversal of character. Turning Mr. Darcy into a teeming sea of sexual passion set my teeth on edge as did upending Elizabeth's character so she seems more foolish than sprightly.

Literally, the tipping point was almost exactly at the halfway mark. Up until then there was some actual plot, some substance, albeit fluffy, to the book. After halfway, everything was about Donovan and Elizabeth stealing moments together so he could back her into a wall, kiss her breathless, and get his hands either under her skirt or on her blouse. Not to mention the absolutely ABSURD moments in the dog judging ring when he can't keep his eyes off her while she's bumbling around, making an absolute idiot out of herself because she's so distracted by the perfect Windsor knot in his tie.

Oh, but wait, they're not entirely sure they love one another. Because it's possible to be sexually attracted to a man you despise, not that I ever fully understood Elizabeth's so-called stance against the wealthy. Who cares if you lost your teaching job because of a wealthy man's attempts to abuse his power? NOT ALL WEALTHY MEN ARE LIKE THAT! Plus, am I wrong or weren't the Bennet family attempting to find wealthy husbands for their gaggle of daughters?! Pride & Prejudice to my recollection really didn't involve the evils of wealth. It has been quite a few years since I've read it, although I'm going to have to reread it now, just to get the bad taste of this pathetic retelling out of my mouth and off my brain.

Don't get me wrong. There were moments at the beginning when I found the story enchanting, simplistic and pure fluff, but still very engaging and fun. Up until the moment when every single encounter they had ended with Donovan being aroused and Elizabeth conflicted on whether she hated the man or not. I'll be honest, there is nothing more disturbing that an "aroused" Mr. Darcy who can focus on nothing but her "pillow pink lips." I'm shuddering in horror just remembering.

The much-dreaded SCENE occurs in chapter 21. To be honest, I'm amazed they got that far with their chastity still fairly in place with so much steam rising off the pages. I skimmed it just to see how graphic it would be and to be fair, Teri Wilson avoids certain words and descriptive phrases during the scene. But it was still a sex scene and all I could think of was how mortified the original Darcy and Elizabeth would be at such immodest and immoral behavior that cared so little for their reputations and honor. Who knew that a version of Darcy could ever become Wickham in my estimations, which he did. When Elizabeth describes the affront she felt when Grant Markham made insinuations against her, held her arm firmly, and kept his gaze wrapped around her breasts, Darcy is green with rage. Yet he does the exact same thing to her. Why is one man acceptable and the other isn't when the behavior of both men is equally insulting?!

I suppose the inclusion of dialogue from Austen's masterpiece was intended to warm my heart and draw me closer to this poor rewrites. But it did not. Instead, my blood boiled at the injustice of having Austen's work so maligned. Remarkable as it might sound, I might be more interested in a story about Darcy and zombies where they at least get the characters right. And while I know Hallmark for some UNKNOWN reason has made this book into a movie, I fully intend to skip it. Why would I waste my time?

Unleashing Mr. Darcy is a travesty. Avoid it at all costs.

❤ Horror Worthy Quotes ❤

"This isn't the nineteenth century. Just because we slept together doesn't mean you  have to marry me." - the soooooooo respectable Elizabeth Scott

"Whatever the two of them were feeling wasn't real. It could only be an illusion - just part of the afterglow of really great sex." - another agonizing quote by Elizabeth Scott

I'm leaving out all of the painful quotes about Donovan's fascination with Elizabeth's perfectly pink little tongue and her plump little lips.
Read More