What junk


It's not unusual on this site for classic comedies from decades ago to be loved by many, but have one or two who say "this was rubbish! How can so many people like it??" Which is fine, of course. We're all entitled to our own opinion. And I have got great enjoyment from screwball comedies like "Bringing Up Baby", "The Awful Truth" and "It Happened Last Night".
So now it's my turn to say what an utterly stupid film I thought this one was. I didn't get one laugh, and each of Fonda's pratfalls had me cringing with embarrassment more than from the last one. And he couldn't tell that he was falling in love with the same girl twice??
Please... what am I missing?

reply

You weren't amused when Jean was eyeing Pike using her purse mirror and commenting on all the females checking him out?

reply

Mmmm... I can't say I was.

reply

I think the scenes with Fonda's dad were all pretty funny. He was a good funny character. :-)

reply

one word: horse

reply

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't find this film the most sublime comedy of all time. It is my favourite film, and the best performance that Stanwyck ever gave.

reply

No need to feel sorry. There's plenty of better films out there.

This one just falls flat. It does start wonderfully. Others have mentioned the mirror scene, which was inventive and funny. There might be some other funny moments, but I can't really recall any of them. Overall, it's no comedy.

Indeed, it makes no sense at all.

(*** spoilers ***)

1. A photo with some text typed on the back is hardly incriminating evidence. It's just a photo with some text typed on the back.

2. Why would Charles claim that he knew all along he was being played, when it's quite clear that he didn't? The man is nearly an idiot savant, good at his science but nothing else (even his card trick is pretty lame).

3. At the end of the film, after having been ripped off to the tune of $32,000 in 1940s US dollars (the next step at $64,000 was too rich for him) and having rejected her supposed slutty sister who speaks with a different accent, his reaction on meeting Jean who tricked him (once again in her original role of tripping him) is not one of arresting her, but of romancing her? Absurd.

Anyway, I really liked the film in the beginning, and it just got worse and worse and worse.

6/10

reply

Please... what am I missing?


Just the best comedy ever made, with, as a bonus, the sexiest scene in Hollywood history in Ms. Stanwyck's stateroom. Indeed, it was a good thing Hopsie hadn't been up the amazon for two years. But if you don't like, you don't like it. I may not understand how someone with (apparently) reasonably good taste hates The Lady Eve, but I don't see how I am going to convince you otherwise about this sublime film, Well, I guess everyone has a blind spot. I love both Golden Age Hollywood and film noir, but after multiple viewings, I just don't care much for The Postman Always rings Twice (though I don't feel as negatively about it as the OP does The Lady Eve, i just don't particularly like it). I gave it yet another try a few weeks ag. Except for admiring Lana Turner's body (but not her acting ability) and really enjoying Hum Cronyn's supporting turn, I still didn't care much for it.

reply

rgcustomer wrote:

Indeed, it makes no sense at all.
Actually, it does makes sense.
1. A photo with some text typed on the back is hardly incriminating evidence. It's just a photo with some text typed on the back.
It is not evidence that could be used in court, but it is evidence that the people in the photo are recognized card sharks as they are.
2. Why would Charles claim that he knew all along he was being played, when it's quite clear that he didn't?
Charles is trying to salvage the little self-respect that he can by claiming that he knew all along. (The "plot" reason for Charles's claim is that it motivates Jean's desire for revenge. If he played her, she has good reason to be as angry as she is. Otherwise not.)
3. At the end of the film, ... his reaction on meeting Jean who tricked him (once again in her original role of tripping him) is not one of arresting her, but of romancing her? Absurd.
Charles never recognizes that Jean and Eve are the same person because he wants very badly to believe that they are not. Eve gives Charles essentially a second chance to get the woman of his dreams, but this time the "good" Eve rather than the "bad" Jean.After realizing that the "good" Eve is "bad," Charles comes to understand just how much he does love Jean, and that Jean was right when she said:
You see Hopsi, you don't know very much about girls. The best ones aren't as good as you think they are and the bad ones aren't as bad. Not nearly as bad.
It is clear in the dialogue at the end of the film that Charles still does not know that Jean and Eve the same person, but he is about to find that out._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

Stanwyck was great and I loved a lot of the other characters (both fathers), but Fonda was not right at all for the part, and couldn't pull off a pratfall.

Shame as otherwise I really liked it, but he let down the whole things as far as I was concerned.

reply

Maybe you're missing a brain......and a sense of humour....

reply

While I don't think this movie is "junk," it does have some problems. Even though I won't go as far as the original poster in criticizing this movie (I didn't hate it), I appreciate him or her for starting this conversation.
It was fairly entertaining for the first hour -- when it was still taking place on the ship. But the last third of the movie didn't make a lot of sense to me.

1) As others have said, I simply don't believe Henry Fonda wouldn't recognize Barbara Stanwyck after meeting her the second time. Yes, we're supposed to believe he's naive, shy, etc. But nothing we've seen suggests he's flat-out stupid. She looks the same and sounds the same. It's not plausible he would think she's a different person. Remember: he accepts that she's a different person even BEFORE hearing Eric Blore's phony "sisters" story.
2) I don't understand Stanwyck/Lady Eve's motivation to want to marry Fonda. She claims she hates him, leaving us to conclude it's just a set up to take him for big money in the divorce settlement. But when they do plan to divorce, she doesn't want any money. Some will say she had a change of heart. Fine, but we don't see anything on screen to explain what caused that change of heart. That brings me to the next point:
3) In the last third of this movie, characters' feelings seem to change without any motivation or explanation. Why does Fonda love Stanwyck/Jean again at the end? The last time he was with the person he knew as Jean, he had just learned she was a con artist, and he was furious with her. Then, at the end, he loves her again. Why? Something had to happen to change his mind. But what?
Stanwyck goes from conning him, to loving him, to hating him, to loving him again. Nothing we see explains any of this.

Again, I didn't hate it. I like Fonda and Stanywck, and I've always liked Preston Sturges' regular troop of actors, especially William Demarest. I just thought there were plot twists, especially at the end, that felt arbitrary, or at least weren't explained very well. I don't want a movie where things are OVERexplained. But there were plot twists here that weren't explained at all.

reply

1, this is on of the times where you just have to take the authors word for it. Perhaps he wanted to believe. It of course must suck if you just can't for that part do the suspension of disbelief thing because the whole second half hinges upon it.
2, she loves him, she wants revenge, she hates him, she loves him. Isn't it kind of normal to sometimes feel all this at the same time(or am i alone in this)? Point is, she probably didn't know herself exactly what she wanted, except to see him again.
3, he was so shocked by the many lovers of the good girl that suddenly the bad girl didn't seem as bad anymore. Besides he must have been months or at least weeks with sex hanging very close before his nose that at that time... you know what i mean.

reply

Yeah, there are a few chuckles in this film but that's about it.

The leads talent are truly wasted in this uneven film.

The movie didn't know if it wanted to be a screw-ball comedy or a romantic gusher.

Viewable, but not worthy of repeated viewings IMHO.

Pretty much over-rated.


6/10

reply

Have to agree--very overrated. But I feel the same way about THE PALM BEACH STORY, which some fans seem to think is PS's greatest film. PS's THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK and REMEMBER THE NIGHT, however, are two of my all-time fave films.

The flip side of fear is understanding.

reply

tgibbs279 wrote:

But the last third of the movie didn't make a lot of sense to me.I just thought there were plot twists, especially at the end, that felt arbitrary, or at least weren't explained very well. I don't want a movie where things are OVERexplained. But there were plot twists here that weren't explained at all.
The movie does makes sense given some understanding of human behavior and psychology and of the conventions of romantic comedy.
1) As others have said, I simply don't believe Henry Fonda wouldn't recognize Barbara Stanwyck after meeting her the second time. Yes, we're supposed to believe he's naive, shy, etc. But nothing we've seen suggests he's flat-out stupid. She looks the same and sounds the same. It's not plausible he would think she's a different person.
Charles is told that she is a different person, an English woman. He knows her uncle, and he is not cynical enough to wonder if the uncle, who is a friend of his parents, is a complete fraud. (On the boat, Charles knows nothing about Jean and her father except what they tell him. Eve's uncle is accepted by the community in Connecticut.)Eve does not sound anything like Jean, and it is not just the accent. Her vocal patterns are different and the quality of her voice is different. (And her mannerisms and facial expressions are different.) Barbara Stanwyck is very good at making Eve a completely different person without changing her appearance except for the hair.The compelling reason that Charles does not recognize that they are the same woman is that he does not want to. Eve seems to give Charles a second chance at the woman he loves (and he would not woo Eve if he did not love Jean), but this time a woman with an impeccable background. A "good" Eve rather than a "bad" Jean.
2) I don't understand Stanwyck/Lady Eve's motivation to want to marry Fonda.
On the boat, in order to save face, Charles tells Jean that he knew before he wooed her that she was a crook, thus implying that he was just playing her. He is not telling the truth, but Jean comes to believe it, and wants revenge because she was being honest with him and thinks he deliberately hurt her.
Jean: You mean you were playing me for a sucker?I don't believe it.But if you were...If you were just trying to make me feel cheap and hurt me, you succeeded handsomely.You ought to be very proud of yourself, Mr. Pike.Very proud of yourself.
But when they do plan to divorce, she doesn't want any money. Some will say she had a change of heart. Fine, but we don't see anything on screen to explain what caused that change of heart.
Why does Jean have a change of heart? Well, because she is not happy after getting revenge. (We see that in the brief glimpse of Eve after Charles leaves the train.) Because she realizes that she went too far. Because she did not really mean to hurt Charles that much. Etc.Whatever the actual details, after getting her revenge, Jean realizes that she loves Charles, and that she has probably lost him forever. (People frequently have a "change of heart," without anything explicit happening, when they realize that they may lose the person that they love.)I don't think that this is so hard to understand that it needs to be spelled out.
3) In the last third of this movie, characters' feelings seem to change without any motivation or explanation. Why does Fonda love Stanwyck/Jean again at the end? The last time he was with the person he knew as Jean, he had just learned she was a con artist, and he was furious with her. Then, at the end, he loves her again. Why? Something had to happen to change his mind. But what?
Charles's traumatic experience with Eve, whom he initially believed to be a better version of Jean, and who turned out to be much worse, causes him to understand just what he lost when he rejected Jean.
Charles: It would never of happened except she looked so exactly like you.
Charles pursues, and marries, Eve because she looks like the woman he loves. But look at his expression right before and after he enters the compartment on the train. He knows he married the wrong woman even before Eve starts to talk.At the end of the movie, Charles is ready to accept Jean as she is. (He is even willing to lose money at cards to her father.) He is willing to take the chance, which he was not earlier, that she does love him and is not just marrying him for his money. (As the movie ends, Charles is about to find out that Jean and Eve are the same woman, and that Jean does love him as she declined to fleece him as Eve.)Jean and Charles love each other all along. Through it all and underneath it all, they love each other. It just takes a certain amount of turmoil before they both recognize it and admit it.This should not be hard to understand as it is perhaps the most fundamental pattern in romantic comedies.To summarize:A boy and girl fall in love; they fight, break up and hate each other; they then realize that they love each other and get back together again. It happens all the time both in real life and in romantic comedies._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

Those who criticize the logic of the plot for having Charles fail to recognize Eve as Jean (as if logic were a requirement of screwball or Sturges films anyway) always seem to forget that he was given a perfectly good explanation for their resemblance. In one of the funniest scenes of the filem ("Let us meet at yon window embrasure. And tell no one!"), the great Eric Blore recounts the tale of the handsome stableboy to a credulous Charles. If you listen closely to this tale (which, in typical Sturges fashion, gleefully polevaults over the Production Code), Eve and Jean are at least half sisters and (dare we say it!) possibly full sisters. I agree with those who argue that Charles desperately does not want to recognize Jean in Eve, and this only bolsters his refusal to do so.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

As with all screwball comedies, you have to suspend disbelief. It's supposed to be whimsical and silly.

reply

I too, think this film is overrated. How this one is rated higher than Meet John Doe and especially Ball of Fire, both of which Barbara Stanwyck also made in 1941, is a mystery to me.

But with that said, she was definitely great in the film and I did somewhat enjoy it. I gave it a 6 and I think that's a very generous rating.

reply