Cary Grant

  • My Favorite Wife (1940)

    My Favorite Wife (1940)

    (On DVD, November 2021) At this point, I’ve seen most of Cary Grant’s post-stardom filmography, and that’s no cause for celebration: it just means that there are fewer and fewer of his films left to appreciate his screen presence and comic timing. Due to some strange rights issues, My Favorite Wife often features on the TCM American schedule but not the Canadian one — as a result, it was one of the last well-known Grant vehicles that I hadn’t seen, and it took some grey-market ingenuity to import an American DVD edition. I’m happy I did — while it’s not a first-tier Grant vehicle, it contains enough good laughs and able demonstrations of Grant’s comic timing to make anyone happy. Its comedy all stems from a simple but ridiculous situation: what if, after getting his missing wife legally declared dead so he can marry another woman, a lawyer saw his first wife walk in perfectly healthy? (Played by Irene Dunne, no less.) It’s the kind of thing that classic Hollywood comedies could easily milk for 90 minutes, and that’s indeed where My Favourite Wife takes us, from misunderstandings and feeble attempts to hide the truth to more heartfelt reunions and a wild second courtroom sequence where no one will blame the judge from being confused. There’s a notable lull toward the end, where (in a fashion typical of many comedies of remarriage) the high energy takes a back seat to a much slower-paced bedroom reconciliation, but that’s not enough to harm the film. Tangentially: My Favorite Wife is often used by queer-cinema commentators to illustrate the matter of the Cary Grant / Randolph Scott relationship (roommates, or more?) and there’s a sequence in there that appears hilarious in bite-sized gifs (read this — all of it)—but it’s even funnier in context given that it’s meant to illustrate Grant’s character taking in Scott’s character as a formidable romantic rival for his first wife’s affections. It adds just a bit more interest in the film for Grant fans and those who read his latest biography.

  • Topper (1937)

    Topper (1937)

    (On Cable TV, October 2021) The 1930s were surprisingly heavy in movies about spiritism, mediums, clairvoyants and such. Supernatural comedy Topper is squarely in that tradition, as it features a henpecked husband affranchising himself with some help from a couple of deceased free spirits. It was a box-office smash, got good reviews and launched a series that ended up with three films, but this first instalment is, to contemporary viewers, slightly maddening. For one thing, it keeps a young Cary Grant in a very supporting role as a bon vivant husband suddenly dead. Don’t cry for him—his character is just as lively in the afterlife, and Grant himself would use Topper as a springboard to an astonishing steak of terrific performances in better-remembered screwball comedies. Close behind him in likability is Constance Bennett, playing a carefree ghost only too happy to be as flirtatious as she wants. Finally, there’s Roland Young, playing the actual protagonist of the film: Cosmo Topper, a banker of high status but terrible home life, with a wife only too happy to tell him what to do in minute detail. (If you’re not happy with this review’s late introduction of the protagonist, just keep telling yourself that I’m merely aping the film, which spends a good ten full fun minutes with Grant and Bennett before sighing and going through the motions of introducing its real and less-fun protagonist.)  While amusing, Topper pales in comparison of other comedies of the same period: it’s amiable and cute, but it doesn’t quite reach for the full possibilities of having two ghosts running around making life crazier or better for a live protagonist. It does not help that Topper is lazy in setting up the rules of its ghosts, who can appear or not, but always manipulate physical objects. It all leads to an acceptable ending, with a (hidden, for this was the Hays Code era) glimpse at fancy lingerie as proof that our protagonist and his wife were back on the mend and mutually satisfying physical intimacy. As for our ghosts, well, they apparently disappear having completed their good action, which does seem awfully indulgent. As I said: Topper works, but just barely. I find it significant that the second sequel would let go of its original premise to take a far more overtly comedic turn in the midst of a murder investigation, becoming far closer to the occult detective narrative. Then, as now, when a formula is broken, filmmakers will change it to follow what everyone else is doing!

  • The Grass Is Greener (1960)

    The Grass Is Greener (1960)

    (On Cable TV, September 2021) The cast alone would make The Grass is Greener worth a look: Robert Mitchum playing the cad trying to romance Deborah Kerr away from Cary Grant, while Jean Simmons looks on in amusement? Yes, that is the kind of film that even twenty-first viewers can enjoy. It’s not that good of a movie, but it has enough high moments to be fun. Grant isn’t quite in his persona here, as a British aristocrat fallen on hard times that must find a way to keep his wife away from a charming American oil baron while keeping the decorum we expect from his social class. As expounded in long but enjoyable soliloquies to other characters, too forceful a response would drive her farther away — he’s looking for a better solution. That eventually leads him to invite his rival to the estate for a weekend, and eventually initiate a pistol duel (!) in the corridors of the mansion. Mitchum plays an interesting mixture of wolfishness in a meek presentation, being utterly charming even as he tries to steal a wife away from her husband. Kerr does modulate carefully between her temptation and her duties as a rather bored wife, while Grant couldn’t have been better in a tricky role. It’s all presented in the very entertaining style of the 1950s looking back at the sophisticated Lubitschian comedies of adultery of the 1930s, but clearly anticipating the more permissive 1960s. There’s one standout sequence from director Stanley Donen in which split screens are brilliantly used to show parallel conversations taking place by phone — the rest of the film is far more sedate from the directorial aspect, but that one scene is terrific. The cast is great, but the story also works well. The Grass Is Greener all wraps up in schemes revealed, the lead couple reuniting and the oil magnate getting a quirky American heiress for his trouble. In other words, the kind of amusing romantic comedy that pokes at temptation but makes sure everyone goes home happy.

  • In Name Only (1939)

    (On Cable TV, August 2021) Despite coming from a time in which Cary Grant was fast ascending as a Hollywood superstar and following an impressive succession of solid hits that made his reputation, In Name Only is seldom named as a Grant favourite — in fact, it usually struggles in the bottom tier of the actor’s filmography. The reasons for this become clear as the morass of the main plot becomes apparent: Grant plays an unhappily married man who falls for another woman, except that his current wife will not make any kind of divorce quick or easy. Grant has the great good fortune of being flanked by both Kay Francis (as the wife) and Carole Lombard (as the mistress aspiring for more), both of them beautiful and legends of 1930s comedy. But the film itself is not meant to be funny — clearly aiming for romantic drama rather than any kind of comic mayhem, the film trudges along gently on the charm of its co-leads, and ends up roughly where we expected after ninety minutes of repeating the obvious. There are now-odd moments (such as a drunk character falling asleep in front of an open window and getting a potentially fatal illness out of it) that don’t help. It all amounts to a frustrating film — three actors playing against type in a film that can be read as a repudiation of the screwball comedies that took marriage so lightly. Lombard, of course, would have a career shortened by a tragic plane crash three years later, making the thought of missing another great comic performance from her all the more poignant. To be clear, In Name Only is not a terrible film, but it goes through its downbeat premise as expected, wraps up things in time for a happy ending seen from far away and seemingly wastes the considerable comic timing of its actors without giving them much in terms of dramatic acting performances. Casting lesser actors would have improved it.

  • I’m No Angel (1933)

    (On Cable TV, July 2021) There are star vehicles, and then there’s I’m No Angel featuring Mae West — few other films have been shaped so thoroughly by the personality of their lead actress. Some context may be useful to understand why: Mae West got to Hollywood rather late at nearly 40, but with a fully formed stage persona from bawdy performances in New York City. She had the good fortune of making her entry in movies during the very brief period of time, the Pre-Code era, where Hollywood was testing the limits of what audiences were willing to embrace in terms of risqué content. Already an accomplished writer and an independent-minded performer, it made sense for West to make her own movies, especially as producers were courting her commercial potential. Hence I’m No Angel, a film in which Mae West, in full Mae West persona, is the centre of attraction as she dispenses her brand of saucy dialogue, has other characters fawn about her, and is unquestionably the one who’s always right. It’s a measure of her star power that you can add, “Oh, and Cary Grant is also in the film” as an honest afterthought. As a Pre-Code film, it’s probably the purest capture of Mae West’s stage persona, more so than She Done Him Wrong. (Indeed, I’m No Angel was one of the movies that was used as justification for the Production Code that started to infantilize American cinema the following year.)  It helps that West is indeed an intriguing character — she may not strike twenty-first century viewers as a remarkable beauty, but the attitude is still impressive in its own right. The truth about star vehicle is that some of them are amply justified.

  • Father Goose (1964)

    (On TV, July 2021) By the mid 1960s, sixty-something Cary Grant was seriously contemplating retirement. Having played romantic leads for the near entirety of his career and unwilling to change by taking on supporting or non-romantic roles, his options were getting more limited and his on-screen partners increasingly ludicrous. Leslie Caron, for instance, was 27 years his junior when shooting Father Goose — while the film (his penultimate) doesn’t necessarily look like a romantic comedy in its first half, the second quickly reverts to form, as his crusty beachcomber protagonist eventually marries the schoolteacher in desperate circumstances just to, ahem, goose up the film’s tension. It’s a shame, because the first half does a few interesting things — chiefly by taking Grant out of a suit and into a scraggly alcoholic hermit’s role, manipulated by acquaintances into contributing to the Allied resistance against the Japanese on the Pacific front. Grant’s charming mumbling remains as entertaining as ever, and the script is ingenious in contriving an interesting situation when eight schoolgirls and their caretaker disrupt his new routine. It’s afterwards that Father Goose gets far more conventional at a breakneck speed. While there are a few worthwhile moments (including a very funny response to a schoolgirl getting a crush on a sixty-year-old man), the film seems so preoccupied in creating, advancing and resolving the romance between Grant and Caron’s character that this only highlights its artificiality. Oh, Grant is his usual compelling self, and Caron looks better than in other movies with longer hair. The interplay between the two is not bad, and the screenplay does hit its mark. I’m probably being overly critical of the film — a Cary Grant film is worth a look even when it doesn’t hit the heights of the rest of his filmography. Still, Father Goose does demonstrate why Grant retired when he did, rather than take on roles that diminished his persona.

  • The Howards of Virginia (1940)

    The Howards of Virginia (1940)

    (On Cable TV, July 2021) I’m not yet completely done with Cary Grant’s filmography, but in The Howards of Virginia I’m seeing a good candidate for the title of the least interesting of his starring roles. Taking us back to revolutionary days, it features a ponytailed Grant as a farmer who gets embroiled in the War of Independence, and must deal with how it affects his family. It is both weird and appropriate to see mid-Atlantic Grant so clearly embodying the American founding myth, but his witty contemporary urbane persona is clearly not a good fit for the backwoodsman/farmer/revolutionary that the role calls for. The result feels like a misuse of Grant — he’s not bad in the role, but it’s not using his gifts to their fullest extent, and the film is wasting an actor who’s not the best for his role. To be fair, this is not a terrible film — it’s earnest in the way Americans get misty-eyed in talking about 1776 (hence me seeing on a fourth of July), but narratively sound and executed with the studio’s era customary attention to sets and costumes. I can think of much worse movies, but if you’re scrutinizing The Howards of Virginia primarily as an entry in Grant filmography, it’s squarely in the lowest tier.

  • Operation Petticoat (1959)

    Operation Petticoat (1959)

    (On TV, July 2021) Even if it had been a terrible film, Operation Petticoat still would have been worth a look if only to see an aging Cary Grant go up against a younger Tony Curtis. Fortunately, it’s not a terrible movie. Far from it — by going back to WW2 submarine movie as an excuse for a silly but rarely absurd comedy featuring women passengers clashing with the crew, it’s a film that goes for four-quadrant appeal (as it existed back then, in-between teen audiences and veterans), good use of Grant and Curtis in their usual personas, and some large-scale physical comedy thanks to director Blake Edwards. Grant plays a captain keen on bringing his damaged submarine back to allied territory, and having to deal with a devious scrounger (Curtis) in order to accomplish his goals. While this keeps everyone busy through the opening half of the film, things take another turn when five nurses board the ship and they try running past the Japanese patrols. If you’ve seen many other WW2 submarine movies, let’s be clear that Operation Petticoat has plenty of new things to show you, whether it’s a torpedo “sinking” a truck, crying newborns being a sonar risk or a submarine painted pink. The presence of female characters in a submarine film is a giveaway that the film won’t be particularly progressive to twenty-first century audiences, but there’s something about Grand and Curtis’s charm that somehow makes it all tolerable. After overdosing on too many similar films in the past few months, I felt some relief in having far more fun than anticipated with Operation Petticoat — it’s quite entertaining, and the Grant/Curtis matchup is only a part of that. (Alas, the picture quality of the version I saw was very disappointing — still, the pink came through well enough.)

  • People Will Talk (1951)

    People Will Talk (1951)

    (On Cable TV, May 2021) As much as I enjoy watching Cary Grant in every single film he’s made (well, maybe not Penny Serenade), I’m clearly done with the best and watching the rest in tackling People Will Talk. While the film is not a terrible one, I’m having a hard time deciding whether it’s a lower middle-tier or a higher lower-tier film. Here, Grant plays a doctor (a handsome one, naturally) who comes under scrutiny while working in a medical school. Mystery accompanies his earlier years, and the compassion he shows for others won’t stop an enemy from denouncing him to the authorities, lining up an inquiry with suspicious parallels to the McCarthy witch-hunts of the time. If the film has a hidden asset, it’s clearly writer-director Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s script. The acerbic dialogue is slightly toned down and the melodramatic plotting feels overdone, but the film nonetheless feels more ambitious than many of its contemporaries. A lot of heavy lifting is done by Grant’s natural charm in order to smooth over some of the film’s rougher edges, even if it doesn’t always work. Never mind the twenty-year age gap between him and his co-star Jeanne Crain—it’s the mixture of genres that doesn’t quite gel as comedy, romance, drama and mystery attempt to blend together. It’s not uninteresting to watch, but there’s a sense that something isn’t quite right with the results and that Mankiewicz could have used an editor to tell him where to focus. Grant is irreproachable but the film around him isn’t, and the result is something that doesn’t rank all that highly in his filmography despite intriguing elements.

  • Crisis (1950)

    Crisis (1950)

    (On Cable TV, March 2021) Cary Grant steps away from romantic comedies to a thriller in Crisis, a film in which he plays a surgeon coerced into performing a life-saving operation on a South American dictator. Grant is impeccable as usual, but even he can’t quite slip into a role absent most of his strengths as an actor. Still, it’s not an uninteresting film — the buildup to the main narrative is not bad, what with a rich American and his wife getting dragged into their holiday destination’s politics without their consent, and then being forced to operate. There’s a strong medical ethics drama forced on the protagonist, as even an imperceptible slip of the fingers could change the course of an entire country — alas, the film doesn’t quite fulfill this premise, as other events prevent an honest resolution to this dilemma. Still, there’s some tension to the proceedings, especially in the increasingly thornier second act. This is not Grant at his finest, but it does feature him in a style close to his Hitchcock thrillers and dispensing with most of the acting tricks in his usual repertoire.   As such, and considering that most of the film generally holds up reasonably well, Crisis remains a good pick for seasoned Grant fans, if only to see him tackle something slightly different, and dispense with most of what made him such a fan favourite.

  • Indiscreet (1958)

    Indiscreet (1958)

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) There’s a freshness of approach in Indiscreet that makes it one of Cary Grant’s most satisfying late-career films. At the time, the fifty-something Grant was branching out in producing his own films, and starting to struggle with the growing age gulf between him and his on-screen love interests. What makes Indiscreet special in the middle of such films as Houseboat and Charade is that it’s a romance between two middle-aged protagonists —and an age difference of merely eleven years between Grant and co-star Ingrid Bergman, practically insignificant by Hollywood standards. (By comparison, Grant/Hepburn was fourteen years, Grant/Day was seventeen years, and Grant/Loren was twenty years —not that they all played their age.)  This meeting-of-equals of the characters (him a respected economist, her a well-known actress) gives Indiscreet a level of maturity not often seen in romantic comedies of the time, as both of them have ghosts to exorcise before committing to each other. To be fair, I found Indiscreet’s first half more classically interesting than the second — the process in which both characters cautiously choose to enter a relationship and have fun in its early days (all the way to a synchronized split-screen scene, said to be the first film to do so) is more interesting than the increasingly contrived complications keeping them apart in the second half. Grant is his usual smooth self here, with Bergman looking as radiant as she usually does. As directed by Stanley Donen, the film is a bit lighter on laughs than you’d maybe expect, but it remains mostly lighthearted throughout, as the obvious exception of the climactic sequence in which everything seems lost (but isn’t). Indiscreet remains a good example of how polished the Cary Grant persona was at that point of his career (he simply has to appear for the characters to go “wow!”), and without the lingering problematic implications of him being involved with much younger co-stars.

  • Holiday (1938)

    Holiday (1938)

    (On Cable TV, February 2021) I was somehow under the impression that Holiday was a major film, but that may have as much to do with it being a reunion between Cary Grant, Kathleen Hepburn and director George Cukor than any specific merit in the film itself. Oh, it’s not bad— but it’s liable to come up short when compared to either Bringing up Baby or The Philadelphia Story. The story does make near-perfect use of Grant as a promising young man who, as the story begins, discovers that his holiday romantic partner is a rich heiress and that her family expects a man of his accomplishments and potential to become a potential successor to the family dynasty. He has other plans, though: Tired of having worked nearly twenty years before taking this first recent holiday, he intends to retire young in order to enjoy life. His fiancée doesn’t have the same hopes, but as it turns out her free-spirited sister does, and given that she’s played by Katharine Hepburn, it’s practically over for the other one as soon as Kate walks into the film. Directed by Cukor, Holiday is a mildly funny comedy of self-discovery and affirmation rather than the kind of silly screwball farce that could have been. Adapted from a theatrical play (with one supporting actor, Edward Everett Horton, reprising the same role), it’s gentle and often melancholic, leading to a very quick conclusion that almost raises as many questions and doubts as it resolves. Still, Grant is Grant, and you do get a classic moment of growing exasperation as a curl pops out of his perfectly manicured hair. He gets to demonstrate his skills as an acrobat and shares a great rapport with Hepburn, all the way to a classic sequence in which they perform dangerous-looking spills together. The 1930s humour feels familiar and strange at once, especially during a scene in which the characters throw a Nazi salute to mock some of their stuffy relatives. Considering that one of the film’s major themes is about breaking free of the dull orthodoxy in order to live a free life, it makes sense that entire stretches of the film don’t contain many laughs nor opportunities for Grant to shine. But if Holiday is not the laugh riot I was expecting, it’s still absorbing enough to be worth a look, and a great showcase in Grant’s first decade of acting.

  • Cary Grant: A Brilliant Disguise, Scott Eyman

    Simon & Schuster, 2020, 576 pages, C$47.00 hc, ISBN 978-1501192111

    Whenever people find out I’m a big Classic Hollywood fan, one of the questions I often get is “Who’s your favourite actor?” Trying to explain that there’s a lot of them and picking one would be incredibly reductive takes too long, so I’ve gotten in the habit of answering, “Cary Grant.”  It’s not only true, but it’s also a pretty safe choice, as these things go: Unlike other actors who had more range or a deeper craving for dramatic depth, Grant usually played the same kind of likable character. Intensely charming to the point where calling him a paragon of charisma is underselling it, Grant’s on-screen image remains remarkably timeless. The epitome of Classic Hollywood, Grant was the kind of person for whom someone came up with the old saw, “men wanted to be him; women wanted to be with him.”

    That Cary Grant wasn’t born Cary Grant was not a secret. Any half-decent studio-approved profile of him during his working career usually mentioned that he was born Archibald “Archie” Leach in lower-class Bristol. What’s more, there are at least two explicit references to Leach’s “death” in Grant’s films (visual in Arsenic and Old Lace, spoken in His Girl Friday). The man who would become Cary Grant reinvented himself once he got to Hollywood — and (decades later) legally changed his name the day he became an American citizen. But as Scott Eyman demonstrates in the exemplary Cary Grant: A Brilliant Disguise, the gulf between the man and his screen person was never wider than the one between Leach and Grant. You can certainly interpret his life in three acts as he became Grant in name, struggled to keep up with his screen persona, and finally managed to close the gap after retiring from acting.

    The facts of Grant’s life are easy enough to grasp from Wikipedia’s blandly descriptive article. Joining a musical hall troupe and travelling to America to escape a poor upbringing (and terrible family dynamics — his mother committed to an asylum by his father, who led the young Archie to believe she was dead), he arrived in Hollywood at the beginning of the sound era, where an apprenticeship from 1932 to 1936 led to an incredible string of successful performances in romantic comedies from 1937 to 1944. His stardom thus assured, Grant kept going through familiar motions for a few years until a hiatus in 1953. Called back to the big screen by Hitchcock after some globetrotting, his next few projects revived his career and gave him another run of great movies from 1955 to 1963. Unusually enough, Grant decided to retire in 1966—years before invalidity or box-office irrelevance and, incidentally, the year before Hollywood completely changed with the arrival of New Hollywood. His next twenty years were spent doting on his daughter and reinforcing his second career as a businessman, only infrequently acknowledging his past as a movie icon. Despite two nominations, Grand never won a competitive Oscar — he was awarded an honorary one in 1972. He died of a sudden cerebrovascular incident in 1986, in a small town where he was slated to attend an intimate Q&A event.

    But those facts barely scratch the complexity of the man. While audiences always expect a difference between actors and the character they play, the gulf between Leach and Grant was stark. Even before discussing Grant-the-character, Grant-the-actor was a deliberate creation of Leach-the-man: Taking bits and pieces of other people he admired upon his arrival in Hollywood, he built a refined, sophisticated persona that he then spent years trying to become. The difference could be seen through exceptional insecurity, lower-class reflexes at odds with his status as a superstar actor (such as an aversion to spending money) and a strong self-loathing of his profession. In later years, Grant wouldn’t spend much time associating himself with classic Hollywood, nor would he encourage his daughter to follow in his footsteps.

    Eylman delves deep into Grant’s life throughout the book. Already familiar with the Classic Hollywood era, he’s able to properly contextualize Grant’s films and career against a backdrop of studio contracts and an evolving industry. Nearly ever Grant film is described with entertaining production notes and box-office results, tracking the genesis of projects and their impact on his life and career. On a personal level, the biographer is able to follow Grant’s quirks and lifestyle (such as his never-finished Hollywood mansion, and his more easygoing life in Palm Springs). Grant was a man of substantial complexity, and A Brilliant Disguise manages to portray his contradictions with some finesse: he was at once incredibly cheap (to the point of nickel-and-diming guests) and incredibly generous, sending gifts and substantial amounts of money to friends and people in need. Much has been made of Grant’s sexuality over the years, and while Eyman finds plenty of evidence to suggest that Grant was variously bisexual at times during his life (including some late-life confessions that he had same-sex flings as a young man, but preferred heterosexual relationships the older he got), he’s on much more interesting ground in telling us that “Grant was on nobody’s team but his own.”  Five marriages are enough to be intriguing on their own.

    Still, the main psychodrama running throughout the narrative is one of dissociation and eventual reintegration between Leach and Grant. You may expect the biography to be over by the time Grant retires from acting and stops talking about Hollywood but there’s still a good hundred pages or so describing Grant as an older man, clearly more at peace with both halves of himself than he’d even been. He becomes relaxed, generous, just as charming but now with the knowledge that he had nothing further to prove. There’s a rather likable atmosphere in those later chapters, as Grant obsessively documents his daughter’s life, flies to business meetings around the world and occasionally acknowledges his film accomplishments. Grant’s late-life Q&A sessions would have been unthinkable earlier during his life when he was a master of the no-answer interviews revealing little about himself.

    Fans of Old Hollywood will find plenty to like here, whether it’s the clear backdrop of how Hollywood changed from 1930 to 1965, or the appearances by other Hollywood celebrities. Eyman is too good to indulge in unverified gossip — the anecdotes here are telling without being salacious. Still, I did not expect to read about Grant smashing Oscar Levant’s parked car with his own in a fit of jealous rage over the same woman. The book is intelligible to all, but most clearly aimed at those with some familiarity with Grant and his era of stardom. I found quite a few new revelations here—including the strong suggestion that Grant worked with British movie mogul Alexander Korda during WW2 in helping the British intelligence services keep tabs on Hollywood—Eyman uncovers enough details in Korda’s FBI file about his American intelligence operation and a curious sudden end to Grant’s attempts to serve the war effort to suggest that Grant eventually found covert employment—although proof remains elusive and possibly unattainable.

    As far as biographies go, Cary Grant: A Brilliant Disguise meets the gold standard of the genre. Exceptionally well-researched yet compellingly written to give us a great glimpse at the man and his times, it’s a captivating portrait of Cary Grant and his evolution. It’s terrific reading, with the only hiccup being the use of unfamiliar expressions probably stemming from Leach’s working-class English background. It’s good enough that readers will feel as if they have a good working approximation of Grant in their heads by the time the book is over. While I’m not quite an authority on the subject, it does feel like a definitive biography — it sets a very, every high bar for any subsequent effort.

  • Every Girl Should Be Married (1948)

    Every Girl Should Be Married (1948)

    (On Cable TV, December 2020) With a title like Every Girl Should Be Married, it’s fair to say that the film won’t ever win any progressive awards. If you happen to watch the now-hilarious trailer, your expectations may run even lower. But the movie itself is a bit more mixed – starting with the heroine’s deeply held belief that women should be free to make the first move (hurrah) but continuing with the same heroine going for some good old-fashioned stalking instead (boo). Of course, the target of her affection is played by Cary Grant, who effortlessly deflects all of her attempts until it’s time for him to yield and for the film to end. Let’s admit right away that Every Girl Should Be Married is a middle-tier Grant film, perhaps even a lower-tier one. Grant is charming enough to make it worthwhile, but there’s a limit to how much he can elevate the material. Playing opposite him is Besty Drake, who would become Grant’s third wife not even a year after the release of the film. (Not that it will make you feel better, but they started dating before the shoot.) It’s certainly not unwatchable – you can make an argument that the female protagonist has a lot more agency than most of the female romantic comedy protagonists of the time. But Grant has made enough good-to-great romantic comedies that even an intermittently interesting one can feel like a step backward.

  • That Touch of Mink (1962)

    That Touch of Mink (1962)

    (On Cable TV, November 2020) Film scholars are quick to note that That Touch of Mink really wasn’t Cary Grant’s favourite film. By that time in his career, thirty years in the business, Grant felt that his best years were behind him: he was getting more difficult to sell as a romantic lead (something that would be apparent in the following year’s Charade, otherwise a high point of his career), his favourite directors were slowing down or retiring, and American society was changing in unpredictable ways. Having formed his own production company, he backed That Touch of Mink as a good commercial prospect and was proven right when the film finished fourth at the 1962 box office. Thematically, the film fits squarely with the low-key, somewhat quaintly charming sex comedies of the early 1960s—playing with the idea of more permissive social mores without quite bringing itself to embrace the thought. As a result, the film occasionally feels like a throwback to earlier movies, as Grant and Doris Day engage in a whirlwind romance punctuated by the question of “will they or won’t they?” There are quite a few engaging period details here, from an extended sequence in an automat, baseball legend cameos, a scene set inside a Univac computer room and a funny supporting role from Gig Young as an academic acting as Grant’s conscience. Unfortunately, it also comes with a side order of homophobic panic, a less than impressive ending and a first act that, with slight variations, plays like a humourless take on the opening for Written on the Wind. Then there’s the age of the leads: Grant was a seasoned 58-year-old, while Day herself was 38, playing a character easily fifteen years younger. That Touch of Mink is watchable, even amusing and certainly charming for fans of Grant or Day… but really not a career high point for anyone.