I re-watched this the other night, and it is almost unwatchable.
That is, unless you want to watch a movie that is like a caricature
of a left-wing propaganda piece. Oh, and even on its own terms,
it's not funny. Cary Grant is miscast as a radical, and even the
lovely Jean Arthur is not given much to work with.
My vote is, even for an old movie buff (like myself): don't bother.
you're clearly not an "old movie buff". you don't understand the movie. I know the "you don't get it" get's thrown around a lot, but it's never been more true. it's not a propoganda piece, and Cary Grant doesn't come across as a radical, and Jean Arthur is Jean Arthur - brilliant.
one of the best Grant films, a great exhibition of his range.
Yeah, and we'll find you storming the courthouse with a battering ram and a noose like the rabble idiots in the movie who do not understand what a precious thing is our country and its law.
share
My only (extremely minor) quibble is that Grant could NOT act. Gorgeous,
charismatic, expert at light comedy, legend - yes. Actor, no. And
standing next to the brilliant Arthur and Colman, one can truly see how
thin an "actor" he was. Today, we rate everyone a "genius" and
everyone legendary - including Marilyn Monroe - has got to be labled
as such. I agree with noted film critic David Shipman, who boldly stated
that Grant's success had nothing to do with acting talent.
I thought all the acting was good, and the professor's changing attitude added a strong element. It would have been ok for her to end up with him, imo, instead of the rather flakey Dilg. Either way this movie is fun,and thought-provoking. The message of needing law and yet people being willing to adjust it due to new understanding and circumstances is a good one. A perfect place for the professor to end up, the Supreme Court, to evaluate and rule on laws and their constitutionality.
Kim Novak in Vertigo: great.
Funny that the character of Dilg was so odd. I think that is why the above poster criticizes Cary
Grant's acting so much. I think it might be more about the aura he projects. In this movie, which
was kind of laughable at the beginning about how evil and menacing he looked and how easy it
was for him to skip jail.
I am so used to today's movies of ultra-violence that I assumed he had killed the prison guard,
and it goes to show how much audience sensibiities have been changed over time and how violent
and fearful we have gotten.
There is a kind of leftist message in this movie, and I think that is why she ended up with Dilg.
It used to be that good people stayed away from politics because everyone knew it was messed
up.
Kind of like in "Deadwood" when the state government wants to move in. ;-)
I think the film would've ended far less predictably and far more
freshly had Arthur wound up with Colman. Dilg WAS a flake (what, exactly,
did this man do for a living, anyway? Guess Arthur would've had to
support them as a teacher, while Dilg pontificated in attics). This is
no slight against Grant - I'm speaking about the character himself.
By contrast, the professor, who at first was so obnoxious and thoroughly
unlikable (I love when he's chased up the tree by the dogs - serves him
right)defrosts. But Colman, so superbly gifted an actor, made the change
so thoughtful and believable. His respect for Arthur was moving and I
believe he would've made a far better husband. One feels Colman wanted
to love her; Grant wanted to bang her. For a while.
I think the audience demographics back then would have disliked an average small
town girl going to washington, and that may be the big change from today's
sensibilities. I think I read somewhere they had two endings ... I could be wrong.
Dilg was a good guy and right ... back when being right and being good meant
something. I think Colman was a bit old for her as well.
It would have meant slighting the average american who is as smart as those guys
in Washington ... smarter if you look at today's news, and better.
They DID shoot two endings, which is why it takes so long for the darn
thing to end. (one of the film's flaws is the overly-long conclusion).
You'll note the professor takes Arthur in his arms and kisses her -
romantically - before going out for the judges' ceremony. Arthur takes
her seat. Here's where the movie was going to (and should've) ended.
Instead, Mr. Movie Star comes in at the finish, she follows him out
where he treats her as a house fly. She chases after him, she kisses
him. Fade out. Very unsatisfying ending (for me). The issues you
present have merit, but I also feel star-struck audiences wouldn't
dare let a Cary Grant movie end without Cary Grant getting the girl.
Similar problem with 1941's "Suspicion." Hitchcock's orignal ending
has Grant as a KILLER. But, naturally, Grant's audiences frowned on
him being anything other than Cary Grant, so Hitchcock had to shoot
the happy ending (which Hitchcock loathed).
I think Colman was a bit old for her as well.
[deleted]
bruce-129 observed that "audience demographics back then would have disliked an average small town girl going to washington" ----
There must be something about those demographics ! In both "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "The More the Merrier," Jean Arthur plays a small town girl who is ALREADY in Washington, and is strongly considering getting OUT of Washington !
"A bride without a head !"
"A wolf without a foot !"
I re-watched this the other night, and it is almost unwatchable.That is, unless you want to watch a movie that is like a caricature of a left-wing propaganda piece.
As others have said on this thread, I do not view "The Talk of The Town" as propaganda and I doubt it was the intention of the film makers behind the movie. It does make a point about the Law in terms of its misuse but I don't think this element of the film was a part of an agenda.
Also in my opinion "The Talk of The Town" was enjoyable to watch, particularly the interactions between the three main characters. Not only did their interactions feel believable for me as a viewer but I equally enjoyed the development of Professer Lightcap from demanding person who took priority for his own needs to using his law experience to help others in need.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".
I don't know why people of the Golden Age of Hollywood hated Washington so much!?!?
LoL!
JeSkuNk
Agreed. Marilyn should not be called a legend of anything positive!
JeSkuNk
a caricature of a left-wing propaganda piece...
ATH - I just watched it again last night and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I've always like the 3 principals and the story. As for the "a caricature of a left-wing propaganda piece" malarkey, I guess anything that goes against mob rule and espouses the law, the constitution, and individual rights is viewed by mitch as "left-wing."
shareI am a conservative, and I didn't think the movie espoused leftist politics. I think Dilg's character was a symbol of free speech. It mattered less what he was saying than the fact that he was persecuted for saying it. I think it is interesting that by the end of the movie, both Dilg and Lightcap change a little their philosophies about law. Dilg comes to see the need for law and order - he tries to turn himself in without implicating Lightcap. Lightcap comes to see that law is not sterile and has an impact on people's lives. The movie is good because of the acting and storyline. I wonder if the people who have a problem with Grant are really having a problem because he is not his usual suave persona? I liked seeing Grant as an "everyman", I thought he did a great job. If you do not think Grant can act, then I challenge you to watch Penny Serenade - especially the scene where he argues with the judge to keep his adopted child. I don't think many people would say Grant couldn't act after watching that scene!
shareI agree. Cary Grant, no matter what the role, is always Cary Grant. His personality offsets his lack of acting ability, and he was a very popular movie star, but his role in Talk of the Town demands an actor, not a personality. Ronald Colman, on the other hand, is a talented actor, overqualified for this silly material. Jean Arthur is perfect for light comedy, where she made her living. Mine is a minority view, but there it is.
shareI could not disagree more. This is a jewel of its kind, with Grant very good playing against type. Jean Arthur is as good as she ever was, which is wonderful. I think you've let your politics get between you and the movie. That's sad. Anybody reading this: do yourself a favor and look for this on TCN.
"Once down is no battle." Robert Furst
Wonderful movie. Terrible boneheaded post!
share[deleted]
Ronald Colman, on the other hand, is a talented actor, overqualified for this silly material.
I didn't much like the content. The stars were...STARS. And the ending was excellent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFYn9Cabpzs