The entries on this thread and the OP's post are the most stupid things I have seen in a long time on IMDb. Who says all characters in a film have to be morally superior, or even must be likeable without flaws? What nonsense.
The script is based on the simple premise, putting theology aside, that the Kirbys must do some good deed in order to leave their hiatus still on Earth, but in spirit form, presumably to get to Heaven. This plot feature, really essential to the film, would be ridiculous if the Kirbys were "nice" people before they died.
In fact I found their behavior rather amusing in the part leading up to their death. While George and Marion can be seen as rather obnoxious members of the idle rich, their obvious flaws subvert any tendency to admire the connection between their economic status and behavior. I mean really, this is not apparent? What film were the critics here watching?
The Kirbys pre-death behavior was also required to contrast with Topper's too restricted life. Is this also not obvious? It should be.
Yes yes yes we all know that moderation is a virtue and the standard to sought. But in overreacting to the Kirbys, I think the tut tutters here evidence a personal conservatism that is reflective of the general social conservatism that is too prevalent in our times. Then current audiences were still coming out of the depths of the Depression, with even Prohibition a very recent memory. While the Kirbys' deaths were shown clearly to result from their excessive approach to life, and as such should be seen as a cautionary tale, those audiences also recognized the pre-metamorphosis Topper as an example of the too restrictive Puritanism that motivated Prohibition and more general social conservatism.
In short, lighten up a little.
And btw Constance Bennett was superb in this film. It is no knock on Myrna Loy to say so.
reply
share
Helena727
10 years ago
People can disagree without calling the viewpoints of others "stupid." I don't agree with the OP's response to this movie (or with the posts by those who agree with the OP), but they have a right to post without being belittled or being scornfully told to lighten up.
No two people respond identically to anything (book, movie, painting, etc.) even tho they're ostensibly watching/looking at the same book-movie-painting. So you're going to see threads here that get your goat. But you don't have to respond with a gotten goat.
I agree with the overall disgust at most depictions of the idle rich, who have done an increasing amount of harm to everyone else. (For various reasons, I don't have that response to this movie, but I think I understand the posters' aversion to the recklessness of the rich. Not so keen on the "We need more of Mrs. Topper's stuffiness," and I appreciate/agree with your points about how dangerous Puritanism/social conservatism is.)
Just asking you to think about avoiding that occasional dip into less-than-cordial dissent. Thanks.
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."
reply
share
barjo4
9 years ago
To me, it's just a movie - made in 1937 when people looked at things far differently than in 2015. At least I am not insulted by the language in this film not to mention the lack of crude, sexual antics that seem to be common today. Cary Grant is well, Cary Grant.
reply
share