Jan 082014
 

Going into Hitchcock’s Mr. and Mrs. Smith, one might expect a potboiler on the level of his 19th-century period-piece turdpile Under Capricorn. The Master of Suspense and screwball comedy? Can there be any greater incongruity between a filmmaker and his subject? Yet this film calls into question that truism we were all taught in elementary-school science class about oil and water not mixing. Sure, it’s hardly It Happened One Night or Bringing Up Baby, but I’m puzzled about some of the censure levied against this surprisingly intelligent, smartly penned, and convincingly acted screwball comedy—especially given the ongoing accolades bestowed on the pretentious, hammily acted, feminist schlockfests Adam’s Rib and His Girl Friday.

In any event, why should anyone expect Hitchcock, that auteur among auteurs, to conform to expectations? Part of the problem with Smith‘s reception may be that Hitch treads lightly on what are often deemed essential elements of the screwball comedy: the torrid volleys of dialogue and pacing, the ludicrous props (like the dog bone and leopard in Bringing Up Baby), the self-conscious critique of class stratification. Smith focuses more on visual suggestion, drily sarcastic humor, shrewd use of situational irony, and—of course—a healthy degree of conflict and suspense. Hitch adopts a more philosophical tone than a Hawks or a Capra, eschewing some of the gags and wisecracks in favor of more in-depth exploration of gender foibles.

Hitch’s use of the most popular English surname connotes his commentary on the typical tactics men and women employ on the battlefield of love. It’s a war that begins in the bedroom, which Mrs. Ann Smith (Carole Lombard) and Mr. David Smith (Robert Montgomery) have not quitted since their most recent quarrel. Their marital rule is that they have to make up before they rejoin reality, which, for David, constitutes his comically relaxed law practice. Sitting across the breakfast table from her hubby, Ann asks the fateful question: “If you had to do it all over again, would you marry me?” Without too much reflection, David replies with detachment: “Honestly? No.” A trademark visual gesture from Hitch sets the conflict in motion: her feet, which have been playfully peeking underneath her husband’s trousers, slide back down his legs dejectedly, as if his unexpected rejoinder had severed their marriage bond with the medical precision of a doctor snipping an umbilical cord. Then, David’s foot goes from his mouth to his throat. “I’m used to you,” he offers Ann as the last in a series of awkwardly conceived attempts at backpedaling on his insensitivity. Oh dear. Sounds like you’ll be riding the couch tonight, Davey. But first you have to plan to re-propose to her, fail to do so, and thereby put the screw in screwball. All this after plot-propelling news that’s so boldfacedly ironic, it really is unexpected: a weasel-voiced, moustached runt of a man informs the couple that they aren’t married after all because of a “technicality” regarding the county in which they were hitched.

Whereupon the sexes assume their natural postlapsarian roles: Davey as the obsessive stalker, Ann as the untameable shrew.

The bright-eyed Lombard, whom Hitchcock reputedly adored, is the center of our focus. The role fits her much better than the closet-aged black dress she squeezes into. While she may at first glance look like the archetype of the blonde bombshell that sexed up Hitchcock’s later films, thank god this vivacious, tasty-as-gelato dish isn’t a Hedren, Kelly, or Novak. Hitchcock rewards her with perhaps the strongest female role in his filmography. Her feminine idealization of romance deludes her into thinking that politeness and chivalry is what she really craves in a man. After a stint of dating her superannuated boss, Mr. Flugle (Francis Compton), from the store, she thinks she falls for Mr. Smith’s business partner and old school chum, Jefferson Custer (Gene Raymond), a man whose personality was smothered long ago beneath heaps of family money. It’s hard for Ann to conceal her grimaces around this wooden colossus of a man. He represents her unsuccessful rebellion against all the qualities she secretly adores in David—his penchant for drink, his sexual forwardness, and his high-spirited temper. She knows full well that this innocuous oaf will never be able to fill the black hole she has deliberately sucked herself into by spurning the other half of her wild side.

Lombard may be spotlighted by Hitchcock’s adulating camera, but Montgomery is the source of the Master’s droll verbal humor. The insults he dishes out may not be look-at-how-witty-I-am wordplay, but their bluntness is hilarious nonetheless. Jefferson, for one, is a “pile of Southern fried chicken,” while the corrugated Flugle is simply an “old goat.” Davey’s need to control the situation with words is an apt Hitchcockian subversion of the typical gender roles in a screwball comedy. Unlike Bringing Up Baby or It Happened One Night, which feature wealthy women from pedigreed backgrounds, Hitchcock casts the marriage in Smith as a traditional one in which the man is the breadwinner. However, he reverses the stereotypical personality traits of the sexes by making David the more verbally aggressive of the two. Ann, conversely, is given more to violence of the physical, masculine kind. She smashes champagne on the floor and throws him out of the apartment. At another point, David reminds her of who made an indentation beneath his eye with a lamp. Seriously, the guy could pass for a battered husband on Geraldo. But at least if he no longer has his self-respect, he still has his sense of irony.

And this pic shows that, regardless of genre, Hitch did too. Smith is neither high art or high comedy, just an unexpectedly perceptive romantic frolic from a fat man who rarely smiled and often smoked a stogy.

Joe’s Grade: B+

 

  8 Responses to “Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941) Duke It Out”

  1. Love how you managed to get a Geraldo reference in there Joe. Wasn’t Carole Lombard the doomed wife of Clark Gable?

    • Indeed she was. A hot little number, isn’t she? I love her in My Man Godfrey as well.

      • Very cute, a unique beauty…..hard to find in the surgically enhanced conformity of today’s Hollywood…

        • Good point. Speaking of which, Brad Pitt’s nose looks to me as if it was cut and pasted from some woman’s ugly earlobe.

          • Ha! I have virtually NO use for modern Hollywood. They are the most in-bred group of limousine liberal twits I’ve ever seen, and unlike their forbears-haven’t produced any films worth seeing to offset their off-screen posturing. Going to the theater is like attending a mass-video game session……an artless, plot-less spectacle interrupted by cell-phone ringtones and less than subtle product placement. Oh, BTW did I mention they all look like space-aliens with their creepily pathetic attempts to avoid aging??

          • Couldn’t agree more. And what seems almost worse to me is not the endless string of Dark Knight and Spiderman clones, the tawdry horror franchises like Saw (I actually thought the first one wasn’t bad, but they should have ended there), or the rom-com fluff, but the movies on tendentious political or social themes (e.g., in the manner of Do the Right Thing, Juno), which are weighed down by their heavy-handed messaging but are poorly conceived and constructed. In addition to older films, I’m gradually trying to work through some of the better-known modern films I haven’t seen, but I almost always end up being disappointed and flabbergasted by the critical acclaim they have accrued. Jason Reitman is one director in particular whose success I can’t understand. I find his films, besides being smug, flimsily made and poorly written.

            One brighter light I can think of offhand is Richard Linklater. Liked his documentary-ish satire Bernie. There’s also his “Before” (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and now, Before Midnight) series. Have you and Astrid seen those?

            Another film I recently watched and loved is Spike Jonze’s weird celebrity study Being John Malkovich. I’ll have to see more films by him.

  2. I read once that Hitch was embarrassed by this film and didn’t like to talk about it. He said he made it “in a moment of weakness” for Carole Lombard. He seemed to be putty in the hands of blondes…

  3. Yes I’ve heard of Richard Linklater….his romantic trilogy stars Ethan Hawke and that sexy blond French actress yes? I’ve never seen any of them but have read very positive reviews. BTW in memory of Peter O’Toole I just bought the Criterion edition of “The Ruling Class” (1972), one of my favorite jet-black British comedies…..and while it’s over the top ad certainly not to everyone’s taste, I think his performance as a deranged aristocrat is one of the greatest I’ve ever seen

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)