swiss
dot
by Douglas Messerli
Claude Binyon
(screenplay, based on a play by W. Somerset Maugham), Wesley Ruggles (director)
Too Many Husbands (1940)
In his book Screen Out: Playing Gay in Hollywood from Edison to Stonewall, Richard Barrios summarizes the LGBTQ Charles Ruggles’ 1940 comedy Too Many Husbands in a couple of dismissive paragraphs:
“Columbia’s Too Many
Husbands (1940) was the typical bauble of the kind that will likely never
be seen again—insignificant, devastatingly profession, and indifferent setting
for stars to show off with nonchalant ease. ...It had a primeval plot unworthy
of its creator [Somerset Maugham]: the one about the widow who has remarried
and finds out that the husband she thought dead has been marooned on a desert
island. Jean Arthur was the unwitting bigamist, and Fred MacMurray and Melvyn
Douglas were spouses one and two. Amidst the expected ‘What am I going to do
with two husbands?’ bedroom farce complications, there were contained some
unmistakable gay allusions.”
Barrios goes on to site the major “gay”
scene in which, the two ex-husbands, forced to share a bed, begin to describe
one another with the standard husband and wife familiarities of comedy writing:
“you wonderful thing,” “darling,” “sweetheart,” etc. deflating the ego of one
another by suggesting that the other has become his feminine, therefore gay,
partner, rendering him meaningless with regard to the decision their mutual
wife must make about who she will ditch and which one she will keep. It helps
that the two, before the MacMurray character (Bill Cardew) went missing in a boating
adventure, were close friends, the plot hinting that such a friendship may
necessarily have to be transformed into something even deeper if the two are
both to survive.
bill: I guess when you decorated it you made if just
what you wanted
for your very own room.
henry: Rave on, you wonderful thing!
bill: (looking at the draperies)
What’s this stuff—mosquito netting?
henry: Dotted swiss.
bill: (with sibilant mockery) “Dotted swiss. You even look
pretty when
you say it! (Going to the vanity table and picking up
two power puffs.)
Hmmmmm...which one is mine?
As Barrios concludes: “The equation is
‘decorating abililty=fussiness=unmasculine=gay.’ ...It helps to have a
smirkingly macho actor like Fred MacMurray, plus a Breen Office so worried
about the script’s bigamy that it doesn’t comprehend the undercurrents.”
Yet, that isn’t where the LGBTQ issues
end in this not so totally “insignificant” movie. Because she cannot choose
among them, the two are forced to spend even more time together, including one
entire night “on the town”—in actuality, so we observe, simply sharing a bench
to feed the pigeons—in order to punish Vicky for leaving them both hanging
without her full
And interestingly, Vicky in Ruggles’ film
likes the attention she’s now receiving from both men so much that she finally
is forced to let the court make the choice of which husband to whom she will
remain married. Inexplicably, the court chooses her first beau, Bill,
supposedly leaving her current and more caring hubby in the cold. Yet Vicky
arranges that while she’s married to Bill, Henry should feel free to continue
to court her, all three meeting up that very night at their mutual favorite
dining spot, Frank’s, where they dance it out in public as a trio, suggesting
that the
*Ruggles’ film even
posits a kinkier alternative as Henry’s secretary early in the work describes
to Vicky how, loving both of Vicky’s husbands, she has imaginatively shared
both their honeymoons with them, partially fulfilling her “impossible” love.
Los Angeles, August 19,
2021
Reprinted from World
Cinema Review (August 2021).
No comments:
Post a Comment