Did Sandy and Gingrich cheat on Harry? - The Fortune Cookie (1966) Discussion

[–] ecarle 16 years ago

...and pats her on the butt and remarks precisely on her weight gain, as if he KNOWS that body by heart.

This was a late Hays Code movie, still subject to censorship, but that little scene seems to tell it all: Of Course They Did.

Whiplash Willie may be crooked, but he's smart and he's a go-getter and he'll do what he can to get big money. He's an Alpha Male hustler.

You can be sure that Sandy dug that in Willie even when she was married to Lemmon's character. "Nice guys finish last" with the Sandys of this world.

At least in Billy Wilder's cynical 1966 universe -- far more cynical than in the more hopeful "Apartment" of six years earlier.

reply

[–] stevenvh 15 years ago

Whiplash Willie may be crooked, but he's smart and he's a go-getter and he'll do what he can to get big money.

I don't think he's smart. He wants to play smart, and indeed he'll do what he can to get big money, but in the end he fails miserably. "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" Hint: he's not smart enough to keep Harry under controle.

"Nice guys finish last" with the Sandys of this world.

True, but this Sandy ends up in the same pack as the nice guys and the Gingriches: last.

--
I never make mistakes. Once I thought I did, but I was wrong.

reply

[–] Danusha_Goska 15 years ago

Sandy and Gingrich are more intimate in their interactions than Sandy and Harry throughout the whole movie.

that doesn't mean that they had sex -- maybe they did; maybe they didn't -- but it does mean that they are on the same wavelength, more intimate than Harry and Sandy could ever be.

reply

[–] stevenvh 15 years ago

Well, I don't think so. Sandy and Gingrich understand each other extremely well: they're both greedy, deceitful swindlers... and they're both pathetic losers. With their lack of scruples and deceitfulness you'd expect they would do better than a third-rate singer and third-rate lawyer respectively.

Anyway, what binds them here is their greed (and only that!) but since they understand each other so well, I think they also realize neither of them can trust the other one. So I don't think they cheat on Harry.

--
I never make mistakes. Once I thought I did, but I was wrong.

reply

[–] aciolino 15 years ago

No. A rather simplistic deduction, showing a lack a knowledge of comedy and comic writing.

The reason that scene is funny (and the key word is "funny") is that Matthau has probaby slapped her butt a dozen times before, not that he freakin' slept with her.

Plus, her reaction is one of disgust, not, "oh, baby!" making the moment even funnier.

You spent too much time watching post-1970 television shows. Or, "Friends."

reply

[–] bradford-1 12 years ago

Maybe I need to change eyeglasses, but Sandy's reaction to the butt pat/grope seemed anything but disgusted. She seemed slightly annoyed, as if it had happened before and she'd told him to cut it out, but she still wore a little grin.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Oh yes, I think that there might have been something between them. Maybe not a long, drawn-out affair, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had sex once. She had no problems with cheating on her hubby. He was definitely the type who took advantage of a situation. She was a beautiful woman. My guess is that he went for it one time at least.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) and Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

No. A rather simplistic deduction, showing a lack a knowledge of comedy and comic writing.

What's "a rather simplistic deduction"? The question the OP posed, or your reply?

The reason that scene is funny (and the key word is "funny") is that Matthau has probaby slapped her butt a dozen times before, not that he freakin' slept with her.

How can the audience know that for sure? That woman was a cheater and he knew how to take advantage of a situation.

Plus, her reaction is one of disgust, not, "oh, baby!" making the moment even funnier.

So what? She might have slept with him once and this disgusted her, so she started to dislike him from that time on.

You spent too much time watching post-1970 television shows. Or, "Friends."

What on earth does that have to do with anything? No, I was never interested in Friends. Okay, so I love Ellery Queen (which is post-1970), but I've seen quite a few pre-1970 films. The idea that Sandy and Gingrich had an affair isn't exactly unbelievable. And yes, I'm capable of understanding good, pre-1970 comedy.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) and Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] aciolino 9 years ago

Good lord! Are you one of those people who believe there was no moon landing?

You have a fleeting idea and it becomes reality. Please, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest an affair between those characters. None. You are living in a fantasy. Okay?

Get over it.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Oh, I believe that there was a moon landing. As for the affair business in the film, there is no evidence either way. To me, it did look like he was flirting a bit with her, so it's possible that there might have been something between them in the past. Of course I don't know for sure, as it wasn't filmed, but there is no crime in speculating.

And no, it has nothing to do with other shows/films which I've seen. I'm simply going by what I saw in that scene, the interaction between the two of them.

It's only a movie and it's fun to speculate.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) and Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] aciolino 9 years ago

We can't KNOW for sure. But really, being nothing in the script to support your conjecture must force us to reject it. For me, it makes no sense on so many levels and is pointless to the story.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

It's not completely pointless. The reality is that both the ex-wife and the lawyer were taking advantage of Harry and his supposed illness. The viewers are told that his ex-wife had already cheated on him. Seeing the lawyer and ex-wife together made me think that maybe they had mistreated Harry in the past by having an affair (or at least, some sort of flirtation). The fact that he gave her butt a little whack in that scene shows that they were having a flirtation right then and there. She didn't exactly look displeased when she came back to that room. WAS that the first time that such a thing had happened? I'm not so sure.

A lawyer looking for an opportunity + attractive cheating woman = I can guess what happened in the past.

It was at the end of the film that Harry finally decided he didn't want to be taken advantage of. He did the honest thing. He showed the world that he's not ill. He made it clear to his brother-in-law that the case was off. He booted out his ex-wife. He stood up to those who were using him and went to hang out with the one guy who had really treated him with respect (the football player, who deserved an apology for being used and lied to).

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) and Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] urgeking 8 years ago

Please, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest an affair between those characters. None. You are living in a fantasy. Okay?

No. Not okay. Why be so urgently invested in the idea that there is NO suggestion of an affair, that people are just imagining they saw what they saw? Just because you want to be contrary and get some attention? (Oh. There we are, then.)

I saw that stairway scene a few hours before reading this thread, and when I heard that line and saw the look that passed between them, it registered right away: "Ah, now that's interesting."

They would never have used a blatantly obvious line like "Oh, baby!" to indicate those two had been 'involved'. Wilder-- like most other writers/directors, one would hope-- had a FAR more subtle way of cluing us in. The movie doesn't HAVE to contain any other references to an affair in order to make this one 'valid'; they threw in that little business just in passing, to show us yet another example of how the lawyer and the ex-wife are sneaky.

Lots of little touches like that are found here (and in other Wilder comedies), little lines we're meant to 'get'. It's where a lot of the comedy is. But I have a feeling you already knew that.

reply

[–] aciolino 8 years ago

Talk about urgently invested?? Look in the mirror.

Yes, I can read, "Peanuts," and find, "The Communist Manifesto." Someone else can read, "The Raven," and find, "The Federalist Papers."

You find what you are looking for, pal.

All I can tell you is that from the time the film was released (I saw it in the theaters at its first run) through all the years on TV, in revival houses, and in my college, NO ONE (until IMDB) has come up with this stupid concept.

Yes, stupid.

Yes, if you think the line, "Oh, baby!" indicates an affair... I won't say it....

Seems like you've convinced yourself of something that is not real and will find "proof" of it everywhere. Ridiculous.

reply

[–] urgeking 8 years ago

All I can tell you is that from the time the film was released (I saw it in the theaters at its first run) through all the years on TV, in revival houses, and in my college, NO ONE (until IMDB) has come up with this stupid concept.

Really. And if someone HAD, how would you have known? You've discussed this film with everyone across the country (and beyond) who ever saw it? No, obviously not. Like any of us pre-IMDB/pre-Internetz, you may have discussed it with a certain number of people, and read some reviews, but not much more. And some of those reviewers and fellow moviegoers may well have noticed this moment in the film and interpreted it as we have (very casually, with bemusement)-- but because it IS just a little detail seen in passing, not some major plot point, and it DOES fit rather than standing out like a sore thumb, they might never have thought to mention it.

I have yet to hear WHY such a little inference of past hanky-panky between those two would be so "stupid". It certainly wouldn't seem to be outside the moral/ethical boundary of either character. They ain't exactly Great Paragons Of Virtue, y'know. So just what do you find so upsetting about the way some of us read it? If Wilder did intend for it to be interpreted the way we did, what would be so terrible about that? Hmmm?

As I said, it's just a little amusing moment in a movie and I give it no particular importance in the grand scheme o' things. So why am I pursuing this at such length? Because these furious denials and charges of "stupid", with no reasons given... I simply find them weird, man, and weirdness intrigues me. Up to a point. (Assuming it's not just trolling-- and I probably shouldn't assume.) If you're going to respond as above-- rather than, "Oh! Ha! I never thought of that!"-- to any little cinematic nudge-nudge moment that some people happened to catch but you never did... well, you're probably gonna have a hard life, at least on IMDb. And I guess one of my little tasks is to make it slightly harder... ;D

reply

[–] aciolino 8 years ago

ZZZzzzzzz. . ..zzzzzz. . . .zzzzZZZZZZZzzzzz. . ..

reply

[–] urgeking 8 years ago

ZZZzzzzzz. . ..zzzzzz. . . .zzzzZZZZZZZzzzzz. . ..

Funny, that's essentially what I was saying, only you do it much more concisely.

I note you S T I L L haven't provided any reasons why our interpretation is so "stupid" and why it must be rejected, even though you've been asked. Therefore, the rest of us must conclude that there ARE no reasons, and we'll move along to more important matters (like maybe a video of a panda rolling around in the snow). Have a nice day!

reply

[–] davidhayes56 8 years ago

Unless I missed something, if Gingrich was Harry's brother-in-law and Sandy was his wife, then Sandy and Gingrich would be brother and sister (unless Harry had multiple marriages and he seemed to hung up on Sandy for that to be the case).

reply

[–] qfal 7 years ago

Couldn't Gingrich be married to Harry's sister?

Do brothers slap their sisters on the butt?

reply

[–] qfal 7 years ago

I just read another comment on a different thread that Gingrich's wife was indeed Harry's sister.

reply