Wow


That was my first reaction when I saw this movie for the first time...and I don't get often carried away that easily.
I was really impressed with this perfectly set romantic comedy. A naive rich boy and a cunning woman is an old recipe, but I don't think it was more perfectly presented anywhere. From the opening scene, I knew I was in for a treat.
And what a romance! With Fonda going cheek to cheek to irresistable Stanwyck, I was just blown away. Really, for an intense sextual appeal, you don't have to shed your clothes and act cheap. Modern actresses need to look at Stanwyck.
I would have liked to change the ending. It was too abrupt, and Fonda's change of heart towards Stanwyck (the card gambler) wasn't conveyed properly. Apart from that one bit, I am not complaining.
Highly recommended.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Just watched on TCM. I would agree that the ending was a bit abrupt. They should have strung this out more. I really thought (hoped) Fonda was actually taking Stanwyck along for a ride and in the end would have turned the tables on her (showing her that he too could play the game). It just seemed implausible that he didn't realize Stanwyck was the same woman.

In any event, some great chemistry - especially the cheek to cheek scene on the first boat where she plays with his locks, getting him all flustered and then sends him off to bed by himself. Very provocative without any nudity or shock value. Today's Hollywood should take note.

And hey, what was with that horse? You think that was done deliberately? Pretty funny.

reply

yeah, pretty sure the horse was intentional, they probably put something on his hair to attract it. thought stanwyks mid-drift revealing dress was pretty sexy, must have been quite racy in 1941.

reply

They had her wear that because her torso was considered too lengthy. Although you'd think that a midriff top would accentuate that.

I did accidentally kill her father when I went to pick her up for the first date. AWKWARD!

reply

The fact that Stanwyck doesn't have to be put in her place or have any kind of comeuppance before the film's end is one of my favorite things about The Lady Eve. I love movies from this period, but that's my one argument with them. So many times, no matter what goes on during the movie, the woman has to be put in her place in the end so that traditional values are upheld. Take His Girl Friday, for example. Grant and Russell are perfect equals throughout the entire movie, constantly one-upping each other, but in the end, she's stuck in the same pattern that caused her to want a divorce in the first place - following him around, carrying his bags, as he ignores her to chase after another story. She's no longer his equal. She's his lackey.

The Lady Eve is such a fantastic and unusual film for many reasons, but one of them is definitely that Stanwyck and Fonda are equals in the end. Stanwyck isn't happy about what she's done to him, but he's already treated her quite horribly enough earlier in the film. At the end, they realize they love each other, so there's no need for revenge, comeuppance, or competition. She doesn't have to be broken or subjugated in any way.

I love this movie!!!!


~This is almost touching what the beauty is.~

reply

I love this movie!! I think that Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck are a match made in celluloid heaven. I read that Stanwyck was Fonda's favorite screen partner--can anyone confirm that? If you google behind-the-scenes photos or view the photo montage on the Criterion DVD, you can see that everyone looks like they were having a blast, Fonda included. Stanwyck said that the set was like "a carnival." I think it's her sexiest role EVER.

And in defense of one of my favorite films, His Girl Friday, I see your point, but "putting her in her place" would mean having Hildy become a nice little housewife to boring Bruce Baldwin--the EXACT thing that director Howard Hawks would've hated. In a way, he was a feminist because his women are independent thinkers. I think you're looking too much into the ending because even though Hildy carries Walter's things, Walter has gone to great lengths to keep Hildy on his side. That shows his desperation for her as a comrade. And in the process, Hildy realizes what she wants in life, and hopefully their new life together will be different.

Did he train you? Did he rehearse you? Did he tell you exactly what to do, what to say?!

reply

but in the end, she's stuck in the same pattern that caused her to want a divorce in the first place - following him around, carrying his bags, as he ignores her to chase after another story. She's no longer his equal. She's his lackey.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Yes, that has always bothered me. I don't see how Hildy's relationship with Walter will improve...and that kind of makes the whole plot hollow, despite the intriguing volley of one-liners fired through out the movie that make it so entertaining.

reply

Yes, that has always bothered me. I don't see how Hildy's relationship with Walter will improve...and that kind of makes the whole plot hollow


That's how screwball comedies work. They typically involve a lack of growth in character, characters stuck in their ways, anti-heroes winning (i.e walter over the good guy), and a lack of emotion. (other traits include rich and poor romantic links, and rapid fire dialogue) It's not typical to find a character cry for instance, though it does happen in this movie, generally there are few moments for the audience to get emotional over a character's situation, the humor, the farce of the scenarios always takes precedent before that happens, as a distraction. Also the plot lines are typically hollow as you say and never really plausible.

Again look at Some like it hot, the ending, if you've seen it. Is that really a plausible ending. Nope. They're all just following a formula, that's all.

reply

Yeah, nearly ten years on, but...

...but in the end, she's stuck in the same pattern that caused her to want a divorce in the first place - following him around, carrying his bags, as he ignores her to chase after another story. She's no longer his equal. She's his lackey.


She is not carrying his bag(s), it's her own typewriter.

He's not chasing another story, they're heading back to the newspaper office to file her Earl Williams story, then they're off to be married and honeymoon in Albany (where Bruce lives with his mother)

You are right, though, that she's no longer being given the 'gentleman' treatment that Bruce gave her, but she's not Walter's 'lackey' any more, either - he knows that won't float the second time around.
______________________________________
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."

reply

I think the horse is meant to draw attention to the fact that he's making a fool out of himself by repeating his earlier "sincere" vows to someone whom he is supposed to believe is another woman. The repetition of these words to another woman (even if she is "positively the same dame") was a bit of a violation of his earlier emotional moment with Jean on the bow of the ship.

reply

It really is a perfect Rom Com, but of course it is Preston Sturges so I expected nothing less.

reply

The fact that the tables never get turned and that Fonda remains naive and wooden from opening shot to ending line seperates this film ubiquitously from all other in the genre. Fonda remains the lone voice of sanity in a comedy that is otherwise ENTIRELY screwball. The world The Lady Eve inhabits is loaded with cheats, scalliwags, gold-diggers and pugs at extreme levels. But if a screwball comedy is to effectively work, normality must exist somewhere within the abnormal world, if for no other reason than otherwise the entire world we are shown would be taken as a silly fantasy. Since Fonda acts realistic to cheats and con-artists, it makes Pike all the more interesting when you consider one of the tenents of comedy is collision of opposing worlds. Jean and Pike are opposites. If Pike solves one, even one scam, the film would suffer.

Fonda always plays a gentle, trustworthy, wholeheartedness I like to call Gregory Peck Light. He stands on the side of virtue in this film just as Atticus does in To Kill a Mockingbird...albeit on a far less culturally important pedestal. The sign affixed to the wall on the ocean liner shows that indeed EVERYONE is a cheat and to beware. The only exception to this rule are the young girls who want to marry Pike's money (cheating on a different level but all the same).

It is a smart tactic by Preston Sturges to keep the everyman Pike always in the dark. First off, we can sympathize better with him if he NEVER gains the upper hand, if he is always bombarded in a two front war of deceit and con, and also because it gives Jean and the Colonel and Muggsy and every other problem Pike encounters even more power and more conflict.

Some critics have not been kind to Fonda's performance for the reasons stated above. However the counter-argument is that he doesn't need to act strong (he's The Snake Whisperer for Christ's sake). By being a swashbuckling milquetoast his job is to let Lady Eve dictate the pace of the scenes and to have the upper hand. Imagine for a second that at some point in the film Pike figures out that he's being duped even on a small level, that somewhere he is in control of a scene. The premise of the film then would have then been ruined because it wouldn't be probable that he could mistake Eve and Jean and the entire second and third act would crumble.

As it stands it is dynamite. Minimal effort, maximum results.

reply

[deleted]

Interesting argument. Just a few comments... Greg Peck Light? perhaps you should view Grapes of Wrath. Or compare Fonda's Western appearances (notably My Darling Clementine and Fort Apache) to Peck's (The Gunfighter). Henry Fonda was always (type)cast as an Everyman whether his character was rich or poor, because most viewers could identify with him. Which supports your point about the "normal" center around which the comic vortex swirls.

Of course hard to consider a snake charmer/ophiologist as normal. Which is part of the incomparable Sturges's point. Also, women generally dictated the zany pace of screwball comedy. Men were often dopes and dupes by comparison, all the more so in the Sturges universe.

Naive, yes. Wooden, not in the least. Aside from his mastery of physical comedy, Fonda's looks from hot-and-bothered to befuddled are priceless. And he's meant to be just the wee bit boring (one reason he's given such an outlandish career choice).

There's nary a false note from any actor. Not even the guests at the Pike party: The overdressed matron opining, "The fish was a poem."

I heartily recommend reading the screenplays. Even the stage directions are witty. I can't dig it out right now but I recall his description of that famous shot of Hopsie looking at Eve's bare leg: "CU: an annihilating glimpse of thigh," or something to that effect...

Why on earth can't they make --and write -- 'em like they used to?

reply

...Re: the repetition of his "love lines" to "two," "different" woman: It's possible that Fonda ISN'T behaving like a cad, but more like a clueless, romantic nerd who can't think of any other way to describe his feelings; the very words he used, on both occasions, sound like a paragraph he memorized out of a corny romance novel! LOL! Not to mention that he had been deeply hurt by Jean and, consequently, reached the conclusion that she was NOT worthy of those "love lines;" whereas "Eve" seemed to have all of Jean's physical attractions and charms but none of Jean's con-artist traits AND it appeared that "Eve" was already wealthy, hence less fear on our hero's part that he should be bilked out of his fortune. Thus, he wouldn't be disinclined to whisper the same "sweet nothings" in "Eve's" ear that he had done with Jean.

AS for his sudden re-acceptance of his "first" love, Jean, at the conclusion of the movie: I had no problem with understanding that his "second" love, "Eve," whom he abandoned on the train, made Jean look honest and down-to-Earth in comparison. He must have looked back on the last time he'd seen Jean in the ship's saloon, when he verbally tore into her (having been exposed as a con artist by Muggsy) while refusing to allow her to vindicate her honest emotions for him, and realized what a jerk he had been.

And for you posters who are incredulous at his refusal to accept the reality that Jean and "Eve" are one and the same: That's the joke! The humor of it being, he is using faulty logic, i.e., "Jean couldn't be Eve because they DO look too much alike and Jean couldn't possibly think I'd be stupid enough to let her fool me twice!" LOL! Only we, the viewers--and Muggsy--can "see the forest for the trees," people!

What's more, Fonda is informed by "Eve's" "uncle" (who's actually Jean's confederate in her little scam, and played by Eric Blore) that Jean and Eve are actually half-sisters who never met (Jean being the the product of a the same stable boy who, according to the fiction Eve's uncle imparts Fonda, also had a liason with Eve's mother) and aren't even aware of each other's existence.

If I haven't satisfactorily put to rest some of the minor objections I've read in this thread, don't let those objections bother you too much--"The Lady Eve" is still a sparkling comedy that has more bite and substance to it than the great majority of the kind of comedies Hollywood churns out nowadays...

reply

Quote:

____________________________________________________________________________

It's possible that Fonda ISN'T behaving like a cad, but more like a clueless, romantic nerd who can't think of any other way to describe his feelings; the very words he used, on both occasions, sound like a paragraph he memorized out of a corny romance novel! LOL! Not to mention that he had been deeply hurt by Jean and, consequently, reached the conclusion that she was NOT worthy of those "love lines;" whereas "Eve" seemed to have all of Jean's physical attractions and charms but none of Jean's con-artist traits AND it appeared that "Eve" was already wealthy, hence less fear on our hero's part that he should be bilked out of his fortune. Thus, he wouldn't be disinclined to whisper the same "sweet nothings" in "Eve's" ear that he had done with Jean.
______________________________________________________________________________

A great explanation (the same for the rest of your post), besides which he could be a little guiltily re-living the experience. How could anyone see Hopsy as a cad?

As for the ending being too abrupt - ??? Hope you've realised by now aniket that this film has the best ending ever.

reply

I thought the ending was perfection!

reply

One of the most perfect endings in film.Charles's joy at finding Jean, and Jean's joy that he wants to find her.Charles marries the wrong woman because she "looked so exactly like" Jean. (Look at his face as he goes into the compartment on the train. He knows he has married the wrong woman even before Eve recounts her lovers.)Charles realizes what he lost when he rejected Jean. He has no expectation to see her again. He has no way to find her or even knows if she would want him to find her.Jean gets her revenge and then realizes that she has probably lost forever the only man that she has ever loved.And all the anguish disappears as they look at each other. (And kiss and rush off to be alone. Look at Jean's face as they hurry back the way that Charles had walked so solemnly just a minute before.)And then there is

Charles: I'm married.Jean: But so am I, darling. So am I.
__________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

I would have liked to change the ending. It was too abrupt, and Fonda's change of heart towards Stanwyck (the card gambler) wasn't conveyed properly.
_______________________________________________________________________________

I very much agree. It left the audience in a lurch.

reply

Abrupt endings like that are pretty common in romantic comedies of that era. The Philadelphia Story, My Man Godfrey, Bringing Up Baby, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith all leap to my mind as examples of movies that each have perfect endings that probably seem rushed to modern audiences.

reply

paul-987 wrote:

Abrupt endings like that are pretty common in romantic comedies of that era.
I really do not understand the complaints about the ending being abrupt. Do people think that it is "abrupt" when Cinderella tries on the slipper and it fits? Do people think that it is "abrupt" when the Prince kisses Sleeping Beauty?

It is a suspenseful ending because although we know that Charles knows even during the wedding ceremony that he is marrying the wrong woman, we do not know how he feels about Jean, and Jean does not know how he feels about her. And then there is the moment of revelation when Jean says, "Hopsie," and all is clear.

It seems that there are people who do not like a surprise ending -- certainly Charles's aggressive reaction is a surprise and a wonderful one -- and would have preferred it if Jean and Charles had talked about their relationship rather than rushing to bed.

Jean did not consciously realize that she loves Charles until right after he left the train, and she has probably lost him for good. At some point -- I don't think we know when but perhaps only when Jean says "Hopsie" -- Charles realizes that he loves her and wants her. In both cases, the emotions were there in their minds; it just took something to bring them into consciousness. This is very true of human psychology. This is not a story about two people gradually deciding that they love each other. It is a story about two people who fall in love, and then something happens that seems to destroy that love. Actually, it only pushed it underground for a while.

As far as Jean knows, Charles hates her as much as he hates Eve. As far as Charles knows, Jean hates him. It takes that "Hopsie" moment in which they both recognize that the other is happy to see them for all of their feelings to become clear to themselves.

That is what happens in Romantic Comedies and sometimes in real life.


reply

ppllkk, I couldn't agree more. I think the ending is perfect. I think the whole movie is perfect.

Sweet merciful crap!

It's just tea! *sips* Needs more gin.

reply

aniket_md wrote:

I would have liked to change the ending. It was too abrupt, and Fonda's change of heart towards Stanwyck (the card gambler) wasn't conveyed properly.
I don't have any idea of how to explain this to someone who has not experienced it and does not already understand it. Love can change to hatred -- a feeling of betrayal will do it -- and then back to love in a way that does not make any rational sense. It happens all the time.

Love and hatred can coexist in a human mind, and at times hate will dominate so that there is not any awareness that love is also there.

Some people want to know why Charles changes his mind about Jean, but that is not what is really happening. Charles knows, even before he gets married, that he is marrying the wrong woman, but he has made a commitment, and he will honor it. The other side of marrying the wrong woman is his understanding the Jean is the right woman, but he believes that she would no longer have any interest in him. He does not make any effort to find her, and he is going back to the jungle where he is very unlikely to run into her.

Having married the "good" girl and finding out that she was not "good" at all, he realizes that he should have taken the chance on the "bad" girl that he loves.

Watch him as he walks from his stateroom to the dining hall. He knows that he has blown it, and he has no hope. No hope until he hears "Hopsie" and realizes that it is Jean, not Eve -- he can't tell by looking -- and she is glad to see him.

I see all of this as very true to human psychology, not that it usually happens exactly that way.

reply

Re. Wow. Wow squared. (As if these threads aren't full of spoilers, already--understandable for a movie that's about 3/4 of a century old--I'm announcing mine.)

I'm late to board this boat, so to speak, but a few points, anyway. I think the ending is misunderstood. It is abrupt for a very good reason. Hopsy takes the upper hand for the first time in the entire film and drags her off (her words) to his cabin, about to get down to what these two have been dancing around since she maneuvered him into putting on her shoes for her. As suggestive as the rest of the movie is, the ending is pretty explicit; end of story. The twist that they tell each other they're married and seem quite willing to commit adultery is perhaps the most subversive thing in the whole story, for 1941. I'm not one to wonder about what happens after a story is over--the author ends it when he does for a reason, and it's not real life--but this film is closer than any to inviting me to picture what these two have to talk about when the whole truth comes out. The ending is delicious, the cherry on top.

I'm a guy, and Stanwyck is impressive, to say the least: sexy and funny. She's a virtuoso in this role, but I'm going to make a few points about Fonda. His stunned, glazed, pole-axed look throughout the movie, but especially as she toys with his hair in a nearly four minute shot is priceless--and a superb piece of acting. James Stewart just might have been able to pull off something like this; Cary Grant, never on his best day. Fonda's Hopsy is an innocent who's been hit by sexual lightning that's just too much for his circuits to handle. But when that door closes....

As for the numerous pratfalls, which the money boys tried get Sturges to limit, they are all just right. Fonda is constantly falling, just as Hopsy has fallen for Jean/Eve. The poor guy can't see where he's going. Early in the movie, in her cabin, his vision actually blurs. Then, Sturges shows the same sort of thing by having Hopsy fall over nearly everything available, including a sofa that's "been there for fifteen years." Just as he first fell over her outstretched foot, be falls, and falls, and -- falls. But not at the end, on the way to his cabin. He's finally found his footing.

reply

jhpen22 wrote:

It is abrupt for a very good reason.
I do not think that it is abrupt at all. It has been developing in that direction since Charles married Eve. Look at his face as he is about to be married. Even clearer, look at him as he prepares to go into Eve. This is not a man who is going to have sex for the first time with a woman that he loves. This is a man who realizes that he has married the wrong woman, and he might well go to his execution more cheerfully. Charles knows that he blew it, almost undoubtedly forever. He knows he should have taken a chance on Jean even though it seemed ridiculous at the time. Look at Jean's face after Charles leaves the train. She has gotten the revenge that she wanted, and at that point she realizes that she has driven away the man that she loves. Charles refuses to see Eve, but he is in despair that he did not take a chance on Jean when he could have. Jean's motivation in getting involved with Charles on the boat was mixed, but she now realizes that she really does love him. So, they are all set. They both have decided they really want the other one. They just have to get together and Charles has to realize that it is Jean and not Eve. He does.
The twist that they tell each other they're married and seem quite willing to commit adultery is perhaps the most subversive thing in the whole story, for 1941.
That is a possible interpretation, but I think it is much more likely that the truth comes out right then.
but this film is closer than any to inviting me to picture what these two have to talk about when the whole truth comes out.
They realize that they have come very close to losing forever what they really want. This tends to make people very willing to compromise and very forgiving, and I am sure that is what happens.

reply