MovieChat Forums > How to Murder Your Wife (1965) Discussion > No Cartoonist Ever Lived Like This

No Cartoonist Ever Lived Like This

posted 17 years ago by john-roberson
18 replies | jump to latest

Yes, I realize it's a farce. I also realize they must have picked Lemmon's profession at random. Because I'm a cartoonist, and this is so...I mean, a strip cartoonist syndicated in 463 papers with a huge, gorgeous and gothic NY apartment(with a shower set at his exact body temperature), who has the time and money to:

1) Stage elaborate play-acting of his strip so that he can use the photo-ref(for only 3 days of strips apparently)--and apparently can close off major NYC avenues and the Port Authority
2) Have a full workout and massage every day
3) AFFORD AN ENGLISH BUTLER FOR GOD'S SAKE
4) Never be seen drawing his DAILY FREAKING STRIP(apparently something along the lines of Secret Agent X-9, called "Bash Brannigan")--though it appears he has no assistants
5) Go to black-tie parties at night and get drunk(the last two words, those are plausible)

...freaking what? BS, I call BS!

(And I WANT HIS APARTMENT!)

[–] mt-kailash-1 16 years ago

John- you've got to remember that this film is set in the same New York as the one where shop assistant Ginger Rogers lived in an apartment the size of a football field!!!!

[–] Prismark10 16 years ago

I watched this film many years ago when I was a young lad. I wished I had an apartment like that. In fact I wished I was that cartoonist!

Its that man again!!

[–] Im_anonymous_or_trying_to_be 16 years ago

Well, you've got to remember it was just a movie.

[–] rainingviolets 16 years ago

Does anyone remember Lois Lanes apartment
terrace, as large as Central Park, now the way
I see it Lemmon's character came from money
and was already rich, and drew his comic strip
not to support himself, but cause he loved to draw...

[–] Anorensic 8 years ago

Lol the most simplistic explanation...he inherited his wealth from wealthy parents/relation..

-----
wat are you lookin' at punk...

[–] nickelscott 16 years ago

Do a little research into the lives of Al Capp, Chic Young, Alex Raymond, Bud Fisher, and others from the heyday of syndicated comics. Chic Young made $300,000 a year in the 40s from Blondie. Bud Fisher was one of the first millionaire cartoonists in the twenties.

The movie is a bit over the top, but successful syndicated cartoonists were very well off back in the day.

And top modern cartoonists do okay, too You think Jim Davis and Scott Adams are poor? What about Schulz?

463 papers in the 60s was a lot – there were more papers and more competition between strips. Papers often paid huge premiums to get an exclusive.

Read Brian Walker’s excellent comic strip histories or a better insight into this time:

http://www.amazon.com/Comics-Before-1945-Brian-Walker/dp/0810949709/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212887692&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Comics-Since-1945-Brian-Walker/dp/0810992604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212887692&sr=1-1

[–] jdsuggs 8 years ago

Exactly right, nickelscott- you saved me the trouble of typing the same reply. Top cartoonists were once almost A-list celebrities. Segar was pulling six figures at the height of the depression and Capp had about five TV shows with his name in the title and was a top talk show guest and featured in the acts of impressionists like Rich Little.

I'm a cartoonist too (really a former animator and storyboard artist) and today us types is lucky to stay out of the bread line! But there's nothing particularly unbelievable about Stanley Ford's lifestyle, especially for a light comedy from that era.

[–] JoeLoebner 16 years ago

It's easy to live and have it made like Stan.
All you have to do is push the button.

[–] Short_Legs 16 years ago

John-Roberson - stop taking things so literally!

Why do people do that when it's just a movie?!!!

[–] pmiano100 16 years ago

I don't blame him. When people see movies about their jobs or professions, they always take apart the inaccuracies. I'm an army veteran and retired federal agent (not FBI), and I do it to war movies and movies featuring federal agents. Cops, doctors, lawyers, and others do the same thing. Jack Lemmon's character's lifestyle was way over the top, even if he was well-paid. How many cartoonists hang out with judges and corporate lawyers? It wasn't really a farce, but it had some elements of it. I suppose that's all we can say.

[–] Molly-31 16 years ago

I assumed he got to know the judges because they were friends of his attorney, which is something it is quite reasonable for him to have.

I've spent many a happy hour taking apart films that are "based on a true story" when I knew what the true story really was, so I know what you mean.

[–] pmiano100 16 years ago

A good point, and also the judges were members of his club. Of course having an attorney doesn't mean you're going to be close friends with him, but it is possible. Stan lived an upscale life unusual but not impossible for a man of his success. It's a movie and no moral imperative is involved so no harm done.

[–] antonymartin 13 years ago

So, John Roberson, you think Schulz lived in a trailer park? What about Jim Davis - you don't imagine that he lives in subsidised housing?

And, what's more, we don't know anything about the background of Lemmon's character - for all we know, he inherited a fortune!

[–] thetheeyecreature 13 years ago

True, very few cartoonists can live like that -- but very few cartoonists were ever sindicated in 463 papers (at a time when newspapers actually made money).

And the profession wasn't chosen at random; it's an important plot element.

Granted, the movie is very silly, and contains a number of impossible or implausible situations (like a magic remote control that can somehow give you control over a construction crane). But it's funny. Terry Thomas is awesome.

"The truth 24 times a second."

[–] AmericanMovieFan 13 years ago

Dilbert isn't a particularly old cartoon and you know what Scott Adams' net worth is? $75 MILLION.

Think about it. The film isn't implausible, just unlikely. Also, as someone before surmised, I think Stanley comes from money and logic withstanding, this is clearly a fantasy film. The guy lives a perfect life where he gets the perks of being a grown up (drinking, sex, money) and the fun of being a kid (playing dress up, drawing pictures for the most 'serious' part of his day and using NYC as your jungle gym to play as a make believe secret agent replete with real guns shooting blanks and dudes dressed up as cliche villains to go along with the routine).

Stanley was living a perfect life from the perspective of a man-child. Of course it's fantasy. Pure fantasy.

My Movie Reviews: http://americanmoviefan.wordpress.com/

[–] alifeatthemovies 12 years ago

Also, remember that property in Manhattan was not crazily expensive then. For example, in the early '60s, Woody Allen, in his late 20s, bought an apartment for $150,000 and sold it in 1999 for $15 million. The townhouse used in this film sold recently for $9 million. If Lemmon's character had a good agent, it is possible to have the life style he does in 1965. Today, you would have to be the founder of Facebook or something.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]