Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Preston Sturges | The Lady Eve / 1941

tripping

by Douglas Messerli

 

Preston Sturges (screenplay, based on a story by Monckton Hoffe), Preston Sturges (director) The Lady Eve / 1941

 

Given the hectic comic beat of Preston Sturges’ films, there are nearly always moments in each of his works in which the flow of his deft timing speeds up, momentarily tripping up both his characters and plot. There is something almost old-fashioned about these cinematic moments, as the director switches from the careful flow of his sophisticated jokes and scenarios into a style that seems more at home in Mack Sennett’s slapstick presentations. Sometimes these slightly discomforting and awkward scenes occur in the opening credits (as in the madcap wedding switch of the matching twins in The Palm Beach Story) and, at other times they emanate from the increasing momentum of the story itself (as when the Marines of Hail the Conquering Hero get carried away in their plans to return Woodrow Lafayette Pershing Truesmith to his hometown as a full blown hero, or when, in the midst of his labor camp imprisonment, wealthy director John L. Sullivan witnesses the almost clinically hysterical laughter of his fellow prisoners upon their witnessing Walt Disney’s Playful Pluto—the latter one of the most unbelievable displays of laughter outside of Lubitsch’s film Ninotchka. As I suggest, these moments, which we might describe as demonstrative releases of the boiling comic energy or stimuli to the comic thrusts of Sturges’ films, do not always make for comfortable movie watching, as they are seemingly at odds with everything that follows or precedes them. It is almost as if the witty and clever dialogue and situations of the director’s “play” had exploded into a burlesque as cheesy and corny as something presented at Minsky’s most lurid competitors.


     Sturges’ 1941 masterwork The Lady Eve stands throughout at the very verge of these oppositions in the director’s work, as he presents, first, a sort of hard-boiled, wise-cracking, sophisticated comedy that represents a high point in Sturges’ art, which, in the second half of the film, he completely unwinds in a purposely clumsy, often overacted parody, in which his major actor Barbara Stanwyck is forced to impersonate a British “Lady,” Lady Eve Sidwich, while Henry Fonda is asked to take dive after dive—over a couch into a creamed appetizer, into the remains of a platter of roast beef while he sits at the dinner table, and through a curtained doorway with which almost brings down the house. Yes, these maneuvers also make for some discomfort; but since they are intended to do precisely that; as part of Eve’s punishment of Charles Pike for his having abandoned her after she had fallen love, they cannot help but make us also laugh. If everyone is made to look foolish, so, we must conclude, everyone in this long scene—which includes nearly all the major character actors of the day—is a fool, pretense defining his or her major courses of action.


     And if these burlesque routines represent a bow to past cinematic stylization, in this instance we must necessarily also perceive Sturges as being far ahead of his time given his thematic set up. If the first half of this confection skillfully presents us with a kind of inverted screwball comedy, the second half takes us entirely into new territory.

      The heroine, Jean Harrington (Stanwyck), seems to be in control of nearly all the events in the first half of this film. A secret conman, Harrington, with her card shark father, “Colonel” Harrington (the always watchable Charles Coburn), and partner Gerald (Melville Cooper), plan to make a killing on the ship’s journey from South America to New York. And when suddenly the boat is stopped to pick up the wealthy heir of the American Ale fortune (“The Ale That Won for Yale”), they switch plans, as they lure the handsome young snake expert, Charles Pike (Fonda) into their clutches. Sturges brilliantly demonstrates their swindling skills by having Jean observe the failed flirtations of several other women aboard before she takes over by boldly tripping Charles up as he passes by her table. With that first fall to the floor, the falling and tripping never end. Within moments, of course, Charles, intoxicated by her perfume (he has been up the Amazon for months) and dizzied by her beauty, falls in love, declaring that he would like to marry her almost before she can lead him to her room in her search for another pair of shoes (he has broken the heel of one of her shoes in the fall). Even though she has begun her actions in order to help her father trap the young man into a card game, we quickly perceive, she is also touched by his gentle vulnerability. And while she readily uses her hard-nosed feminine wiles in order to literally make him grovel at her feet and snuggle up to her breasts, she is also surprisingly honest and open about her motives, admitting that everyone in the room knows who he (Charles) is, and, later, admitting that she purposely tripped him to get him into her room. As Charles himself puts it, she is a strange girl, knocking him down only to build him up.



       If Jean seems in control, however, it soon becomes clear that in his utter innocence, Charles has the upper hand. He, after all, has the snake (a species he has brought back from the Amazon) which terrifies her. And despite all of her machinations, it is Jean who falls head-over-heels in love, tripping up not only her own but her father’s nefarious plans. In order to win Charles, she is even willing to thwart her own father’s gambling tactics, which almost permits the wealthy young Charles to stay out of debt to the card shark.

       Just as she has “tripped” Charles, however, Jean too is eventually “tripped up” by the truth, as Charles’ companion Muggsy (William Demarest) reveals that she is a member of the criminal team. Charles’ predictable rejection of her leads to her own fall—as she sobs, laying prone upon her bed.


       “Tripping,” indeed might be the way to describe the events these two woebegone lovers experience in their plights. They are both literally “on a trip” throughout the film, traveling from South America to New York, on to Connecticut, back to New York, and, finally taking a train to nowhere and another ship into the future. Already in the first half, both are tripped up by love, to say nothing of the numerous pratfalls of which I have already hinted in the second half of the film. Finally, they both lurch forward from event to event almost as if they were on drugs. Charles’ father even asks the younger Pike, at one point, whether or not he is drunk. With all the shifts of personas and realities he is facing, he might as well be inebriated. In the high and lows of their remaining love affair, moreover, they surely experience something akin to responses of various kinds of addicts.


       In reaction to having been betrayed by Charles and serpent, Jean—as a new-born Eve—is determined to seduce and punish her Adam in the gardens of the Nutmeg State. With a feminist like fury, she lashes out by playing her own self in drag, transforming the beguiling con-woman she was previously into a kind cackling, wise-cracking, schemer. For his part, Sturges releases his characters and actors from comedic control, encouraging them to act out a parody of their own small-minded plots. The more outrageously Eve behaves, the higher her American counterparts hold her in regard.

       The only question is how Charles might possibly fall in love with this “new” version of Jean. He is so blind at this point, we can only surmise, that the very fact that she looks like his previous love proves that she is not the same woman—despite Muggsy’s insistence that “She is the same dame”—a woman perhaps more worthy of his love.

       That “worthiness” becomes the issue of his wedding night, as, one by one (a bit like Rebecca admitting her wicked past to new husband, Maxim de Winter in Hitchcock’s film of the year before) she names her previous lovers, unintentionally (or perhaps intentionally) defenestrating her former lover from the train. The long, slow, roll down of the curtain of her compartment window ends the burlesque, returning us to the more standard comedic elements of Sturges’ film. And so the film ends, back aboard the ship, as Charles re-encounters Jean, being so relieved to see her again that he takes her in his arms for the movie’s first truly passionate kiss. Despite the restrictions of the Hays Code, Charles follows her into her room for what we recognize will not simply be a replay of this film’s earlier scene. Not to worry.

 

                                 Charles: “I’m married.”

                                 Jean: “But so am I darling. So am I.”

 

Los Angeles, June 12, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (June 2014).

Ernst Lubitsch | Ninotchka / 1939

chemically sympathetic

by Douglas Messerli

 

Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, and Walter Reisch, screenplay, based on the story by Milichior Lengyel) Ernst Lubitsch (director) Ninotchka / 1939

 

Ernst Lubitsch’s classic comedy Ninotchka, based on a story by Melichior Lengyel, in some senses is a frothy fantasy based on cold-war politics. Despite Putin’s despicable behavior in our own times, and the talk about a reestablishment of just such political boundaries, I think it would almost impossible to remake this film with the open satiric barbs about the Soviet system Lubitsch’s work tosses out. The very fact that some of these work as witty humor, only makes us realize just how different the pre-World War II politics (and even the post war attitudes toward the Soviet Union) are from our more corrective evaluations of today. Pondering Stalin’s purging of Soviet citizens, special envoy Ninotchka (Greta Garbo)—sent by the Soviet government to Paris to reign in the spending activities and failures of Buljanoff (Felix Bressart), Kopalski (Alexander Granach), and Iranoff (Sig Ruman)—observes: “The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians.”


     A short while before the comic trio have told French authorities that the jewels (of the Grand Duchess Swana (Ina Claire) have been “confiscated legally.” In ponderous judgment, Ninotchka describes the handsome Leon (the enduring Melvyn Douglas), with whom she will soon fall in love, as “the unfortunate product of a doomed culture.” In Charles Brackett’s, Billy Wilder’s and Walter Reisch’s always energetic script, the Russians identify any feelings of happiness as something needed to be punished.

     On the other hand, the film often twists these same stereotypes into similarly comic put-downs of Western culture. As Bulijanoff, Kopalski and Ironoff satirically point out early on when the jeweler Mercier declares that he will buy the Soviet jewels, but that it will mean a great loss: “They accumulate millions by taking loss after loss.” Summing up Leon, Ninotchka observes:

 

                          Ninotchka: We don’t have men like you in my country.

                          Leon: Thank you.

                          Ninotchka: That is why I believe in the future of my country.


And Leon, himself, dishes western values in his comment on a radio: “A radio’s a little box that you buy on the installment plan, and before you tune it in, they tell you there’s a new model out.” No matter how hard we might try to admire the little Parisian hat that catches Ninotchka’s eye, it is a “silly” object, akin almost the gunny sack dresses that Ricky and Fred have whipped up by designers for their wives in I Love Lucy to mock Paris haute couture. 


            

     Watching Ninotchka again, years after my last viewing, I realized just how dependent Lubitsch’s work is on these series of witty observations for the work’s “charm.” But equally, important, it seems to me, is the way Ninotchka is portrayed. She may, at first, appear to be simply a gloomy ghoul, determined to visit the light and power company, the sewers of Paris, and even the Eiffel tower simply to glean technical information; but she is also almost pathologically honest, which makes her different from nearly any other woman Leon has encountered. If Swana is the typical woman of Leon’s past, he can perceive them merely as slightly daffy manipulators, babbling out through self-centered monologues information that demands response rather than comprehension. When she attempts to demean Ninotchka at a nightclub by nonsensically muttering about a dog given to her by Leon in an attempt to exclude the Russian envoy, she concludes: “Oh here I am muttering about something which I’m sure makes no sense.” Ninotchka’s clearly-perceived summary of the situation, takes even Swana back as she declaims that now everyone will understand her!Ninotchka, on the other hand, attracts Leon precisely because she means what she says. When he attempts to trick her into viewing his own home from the Eiffel Tower, with the hope of one day drawing her there, she asks straight out, do you want to take me there? And soon after they are in his house, listening to the radio and beginning to speak romantically. Time and again, throughout this film, Ninotchka is made appealing by being like no other, represented as a true idealist who speaks the truth; and it is that straight-forward almost clumsy approach to life that makes her, as a character, so endearing.

      The worst scene of this movie was also the most hyped, the “famous” scene in which the legendarily serious Garbo supposedly first laughed (although she had done so in numerous other films as well). In the small workman’s bistro into which Leon follows her, the great Lutitsch, pulling out all the stops, seems to be rechanneling the directorial idiocies of Frank Capra through Leon’s corny common greeting of the Parisian worker workers: “Hi ya!” followed by his lame attempts to tell jokes which result in a far more burlesque-like collapse of chair and table. The bellows of unconvincing laughter this occasions is almost unbearable as is its he-hawing gestures. Lubitsch’s famed “comic touch” emanates from subtlety, witty language, a sudden twist of the plot, social and political blockades to loves gracefully swept aside. It seems almost as if the studio had written and shot scene. Instead of “the Lubitsch touch,” one might describe this scene as having been stomped out by MGM hacks.



       Fortunately, Leon’s and Ninotchka’s love is not based on this particular encounter—or any others for that matter. Refusing the romantic notions of love, Ninotchka comprehends love in very scientific terms. Leon’s general appearance, as she puts it, is “not distasteful.” “Chemically we’re already quite sympathetic.” When he asks what he might do to further this sympathy, Ninotchka expresses it as honestly as anyone might: “You don’t need to do anything,” she replies, kissing him. Without all the claptrap of the boulevard, love is as simple represented as two sets of lips meeting one another, and by the time Ninotchka is forced to return to the Soviet Union, she and Leon have clearly already “had Paris,” in the sense that Rick and Elsa had “had Paris” in Curtiz’s Casablanca.

     The couple’s later meeting again in Casablanca, if rekindling their romance, is basically a tragic one, while Ninotchka’s and Leon’s reencounter in Turkey is nearly all comic, with only the breakup of Buljanoff, Kopalski, and Iranoff, through their positions in the marketplace, casting any shadow over what will surely be their return to sunny Paris.

                       

Los Angeles, May 13, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (May 2014).


Daniel Rivera | Fin de semana bisiesto (Leap Weekend) / 2020

impossible love

by Douglas Messerli

 

Daniel Rivera (screenwriter and director) Fin de semana bisiesto (Leap Weekend) / 2020 [20 minutes]

 

14-year-old David (Matias Alvarez) is spending his vacation with his older cousin Pamela (Camila Oliva). But now there’s a record-breaking heatwave on, and he can do very little but sleep all day, without energy to even want to go get the ice she’s run out of. Her boyfriend is on his way, but won’t pick up the phone, so she can’t ask him to stop on the way get some.


     David dutifully trudges out into the heat to bring back a bag of ice, which has almost melted before he returns. But now the boyfriend, Jaiver (David Vargas), has arrived, a handsome man who Pamela doesn’t quite seem to appreciate. In a sense, although he’s her age, he’s almost a kid himself. For example, she’s disturbed that he’s been chewing a piece of gum for two days, that he dare to offer some beer to a 14-year-old.

     But Javier basically ignores her, and lets the boys take some sips from his can. Almost immediately David is smitten with the man who treats him as if he were a human being, and despite the heat, he begins to take an interest in what’s going around him. When Javier takes out his gum, David secretly grabs it and begins chewing it, just to share something that was in Javier’s mouth. Unfortunately, he swallows it, hours later to spit it up, now half digested.


     Later, in the bathroom, spotting the boyfriend’s Calvin underwear laying on the floor, he takes off his own undershorts and puts on Javier’s. He’s gradually become obsessed with his cousin’s boyfriend.

      When Pamela and Javier announce they going out shopping for dinner, he requests she bring back some cream, but she refuses. Javier pops in and asks what kind of ice cream: “watermelon,” he smiles back. By this time, he’s stolen the boy’s heart.


      And the next day they go to a local park where Javier teaches him to drive. With Pamela in the backseat busy on her cellphone and Javier in the front with David, we observe Javier look back to see if Pamela is attending to what’s going on, and he reaches over to touch the boy almost as if he were going to hug him or if nothing put his hand to his chest.


     The heat distorts reality. We can’t quite know what we’re even seeing, and besides at that very moment the engine, overheated, conks out, and trio must walk back home.

      The frustration grows for David, as he overhears a fight between Javier and his cousin. He was to have the spent the week with her, but now declares he has to leave the next morning. One can only wonder whether he had noticed the boy’s obsessions about him or that he might wish to even return them, absenting himself so to prevent any such event.


      David wanders back to the stranded car and curls up in the back seat. He awakens to realize the auto is moving, Javier on the phone with Pamela saying that he will be there in about 15 minutes, bringing back David. No, he cannot come in.

      In this wonderfully obsessive film by Chilean filmmaker Daniel Rivera, David has almost forced the man to kidnap him, so intense has his love become. But it is not an appropriate love, and he knows it must soon come to an end.

 

Los Angeles, July 31, 2023

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (July 2023).

Billy Wilder | Sabrina / 1954

without an umbrella

by Douglas Messerli

 

Billy Wilder, Samuel Taylor, and Ernest Lehman (based on the play by Samuel Taylor), directed by Billy Wilder Sabrina / 1954

 

Given the wry comic sensibility and polished acting of Billy Wilder’s 1954 film, Sabrina, it might be difficult to comprehend why, years later, Wilder described his experience with the film as one of his worst directorial experiences. Wilder himself was distressed with Audrey Hepburn’s acting skills. Actor Humphrey Bogart, who had wanted Lauren Bacall for the role, suggested that Hepburn was fine if you liked 20 retakes of each scene.

 


     That actor also hated the younger figure in the film’s sexual triangle, William Holden, whom he dubbed “smiling Billy.” And, even more serious, he turned on the director, associating Wilder’s German accent and notoriously imperious decision making as similar to working with a Nazi—surely a label of the most painful sort for an Austrian Jew who had escaped Hitler’s Holocaust.    

     Meanwhile, throughout the filming Holden and Hepburn were quietly (or perhaps not so quietly) carrying on a sexual affair, which ended soon after the filmmaking when Hepburn discovered that Holden could no longer have children. Surely their on-screen likeability when they appear in one another’s company, has much to do with that relationship. But the film’s story—based on a moderately successful stage play by Samuel Taylor, with further writing by Ernest Lehman, and Wilder himself—centers upon Hepburn’s (as Sabrina Fairchild) growing love for Bogart (the serious-minded business man Linus Larrabee). Throughout her career Hepburn was paired with older men (Fred Astaire, Gregory Peck, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant near the end of his career, Rex Harrison, and others), but it is an even further stretch to imagine a love affair between Bogart, spitting out lines between loose dentures and hearkening back to a vision of “boula-boula” days at Yale, a song of the 1930s. The movie outlines the age difference even more exaggeratedly by featuring Frank Silver’s and Harry Cohn’s 1922 song, “Yes! We Have No Bananas” as among the works in Linus Larrabee’s juvenile collection of records.  


       Despite Hepburn’s beautiful smile and stunning outfits (clothes, for the most part, designed by Givency, but for which in-house designer Edith Head won an Oscar, without even a nod to Givency), it seems nearly impossible, given the logic of the tale, to imagine Hepburn giving up her relationship with the playboy David Larrabee (Holden) for the grandfatherly Linus, a man we can well imagine might easily grow into the role of his Monopoly card look-alike figure of the Larabee brother’s father (a befuddled Walter Hampden). While the 1995 remake of the film worked hard to establish Linus as hard-working tycoon who went out of his way to do good for people, except for Bogart’s Linus’ argument that his Machiavellian mergers help the poor to find jobs, his character does not even apologize for using and abusing anyone around him—including his own brother—in order to become richer and gain a new plaque on the walls of his towering downtown business building. Although he claims not to care about money or power, he is, nonetheless, clearly obsessed by the lure of both.



      Even more incredulously, we are asked to believe that David, who, as Linus accuses him, cannot even find his way to their family office building, and shows little ability—except in the arms of a woman—out of a water polo pool, suddenly awakens one morning to realize his brother is in love with the same woman with whom he claims to be infatuated, and is now miraculously willing to abandon in favor the his former fiancée—a marriage whom the Larabee family and her father have knotted into a vast conglomeration of South American sugar cane and American plastics. Given the near-perpetual deceptions of Linus and his outright dissembling to Sabrina throughout his romantic pretense, it is nearly impossible to swallow the film’s conclusions, that all along what Linus really needed was to throw away his umbrella and raise the brim of his hat.

      Astonishingly, none of my petty pokes into the logic of Wilder’s film matter. Despite the absurdity of it all, the film spins out a story of magical love between two unlikely figures that in its comic tenderness has hardly been matched in the cinema before or since. Even if we account for the audience’s willing suspension of disbelief, the director has succeeded in Sabrina perhaps even more than he knew in setting up his likeable Cinderella to inherit the keys of the kingdom, which, we can only hope, she will redeem through her impetuous attempts to reach out for love. The grumbling Bogart can mumble into his whisky as much as he wishes, but, as Wilder predicted, he was a better actor in this little comedy than he thought he was. Even without an umbrella, Bogart and Wilder’s film make a gentle landing into the archives of American filmmaking, the film selected for inclusion in the United States National Film Registry.

 

Los Angeles, May 28, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (May 2014).

 

Vincente Minnelli | Gigi / 1958

up too close, back too far

by Douglas Messerli

 

Alan Jay Lerner (screenplay, based on the fiction of Colette, and lyrics), Frederick Loewe (music, orchestrated by André Previn), Vincente Minnelli (director) Gigi / 1958

 

Alan Jay Lerner’s and Frederick Loewe’s original film musical of 1958 received several glorious reviews, including the The New York Times reviewer Bosley Crowther’s comparison of it with the author and composer’s Broadway success My Fair Lady. The music later garnered numerous Golden Globe Awards and eight Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director (Vincente Minnelli), Best Screenplay (Alan Jay Lerner), Best Costume Designer (Cecil Beaton), and Best Original Score (awarded to the film’s musical arranger, André Previn instead of to composer Frederick Loewe). In 1991 the film was selected for inclusion in the Library of Congress’ National Film Registry. Today, Gigi is generally perceived as the last great cinematic musical presented by Arthur Freed and MGM Studios.


      Despite all of these kudos—or perhaps one should say, along with them—some reviews portrayed the film as “100% escapist fare” (Variety), the family-oriented TV Guide describing the experience of seeing it as making one feel that “you’re gagging on pastry. …Ten minutes into the movie, you’ve resolved the plot and are left to wallow in lovely frou-frou.” Nearly everyone praised the sets, costumes, and acting, but, as Time Out described it, watching Gigi is like eating a meal “consisting of cheesecake”; “One quickly longs for something solid and vulgar to weigh things down.” 

     No one could not possibly disagree with the statements of the beauty of Minnelli’s film, but at times I feel these critics may not have seen the same film I watched again for at least the 10th time on a home-library DVD. The film I watched begins with the Gallic charmer Maurice Chevalier (playing the elderly womanizer Honoré Lachaille) singing what might almost be described as a paean to pedophilia, “Thank Heaven for Little Girls.” True, Honoré’s interest in the little girls upon whom he leers as they play near Paris’ Bois de Boulogne is that “they grow up in the most delightful ways.” And the sexual liaisons in which he attempts to engage throughout the film are mostly ineffectual. In reality Chevalier was nearly 70 at the time the film features him with young women upon his arm, which certainly might lead to some gossip in real life. Honoré, however, has no quibbles about suggesting his handsome young nephew (Gaston Lachaille, played by Louis Jourdan) keep in the touch with young so that some of youth might “rub off.” Honoré’s past affairs, however, seem to have little effect upon him, since, as he reveals in his duet with a former lover Madame Alvarez, “I Remember It Well,” he brazenly forgets nearly everything.


     Gaston, meanwhile, is an absurdly spoiled young man-about-town, who, despite his numerous affairs with beautiful women—one of which results in his former lover’s suicide (she has killed herself from “insufficient poison” numerous times)—and a penchant for buying expensive baubles that might even make someone like Donald Trump blink, is, so he declares, utterly “bored.” His self-centrism is reiterated in the Lerner and Loewe ditty (“She Is Not Thinking of Me”).  The only “thing” he seems to enjoy is the company of a young schoolgirl, Gigi (the fresh-faced Leslie Caron), to whom he brings candy in turn for numerous card games and the simple joy of watching her flaunt her youthful cleverness. At one point he brings her grandmother, Madame Alvarez (Hermione Gingold), a bottle of champagne, which, despite the elder’s warning, with Gaston’s help Gigi gulps down in such quantities that she becomes quite drunk (“The Night They Invented Champagne”).* 


      If we are not shocked by the young girl’s behavior or, at least, the lack of her proper parenting—her own mother has seemingly abandoned her for life on the stage—surely the society of the time might be, a fact of which Gigi is well aware through her reading of numerous scandal sheets, all which seemingly centering upon the rakish life of Gaston and others. The Belle Époque, as presented in this film, is a world of gossips, brilliantly revealed in the movie’s luscious scenes in the wealthy dining rooms of Maxim’s.

      If the alcoholic inebriation of a young girl doesn’t faze one, perhaps the fact that the girl’s grandmother and her sister, Alicia (Isabel Jeans) are attempting to educate their young charge in the art of being a high-paid mistress, might give one pause. After the two younger figures, Gaston and Gigi, innocently gambol about the beach at Deauville—despite the fact that a grown man wrestling upon the sand with a teenage girl might give viewers pause—the women join forces to speed up the young’s sexual education. Gaston, realizing that he has suddenly fallen in love with the formerly gawky kid, is quite willing and ready to grandly set her up (house, servants, clothes, jewels, and even a carriage) as what used to be called a “kept woman.” As Honoré quips, a girl like that is good for four months!


      A quick learner, despite the frustrations of her teacher-Aunt, Gigi bollixes his plans by performing all the selfless tasks of waiting on her lover as well as all the other women he has encountered. Boredom ensues once more; and Gaston, returning Gigi home like she were package a spoiled meat, is ready to abandon her before he has even begun the seduction and rape which was surely to have followed.

     True, this Colette-inspired work occurs in Paris at the beginning of the 20th century, a world far removed in the moral values and Sunday-school admonitions of Kalamazoo. And, in the end, the authors redeem the murky relationships somewhat by marrying off Gigi to Gaston, whereupon we observe her interacting with the ladies of Bois de Boulogne as if she were an old friend of everyone. As Gaston calls her back to his side in the carriage we almost fear that, given Gigi’s final transformation, his eyes might shift to the gatherings of young girls of which the old codger Honoré and, now, the whole chorus rhapsodize in a reprise of “Thank Heaven for Little Girls.”


     In the end, one has to wonder, after all of producer Arthur Freed’s battles with the members of the Hays Office to make this film, just what that haven of moral decency won. Superficially, of course, all may be as sweet and delicious as the cake sweetened with curds, eggs, milk and sugar; the film almost seems to have given up any of its Colette-based plot. But just underneath that layer of dessert topping is something in this film that takes us in another direction, something closer to another notion of “cheesecake” genre of feminine pin-ups, revealing lots of leg if little explicit nudity; and, at times, to put it more vulgarly, we may even glimpse, metaphorically speaking, yet another slang variation of that word: a subversive flash of a woman’s crotch, which certainly does, despite the criticisms of magazines like Time Out substantially “weigh things down.” One might even argue that, despite all of its extravagant costumes and sets, the characters of the world are utterly consumed with the idea of sex. Even the innocent Gigi, early on in the movie, decries the Parisian preoccupation with sex in the song “The Parisians”:

 

Gigi: A necklace is love! A ring is love! / A rock from some obnoxious little king is love! / A sapphire with a star is love! / An ugly black cigar is love! / Everything you are is love! You would think it would embarrass / All the people here in Paris / To be thinking every minute of love!

 

    It is just these underlying, slightly “darker” elements of this masterful musical comedy that give it luster—like the dark light that Gigi’s Aunt describes gathering within the center of an emerald—transforming whatever might be described as “frou-frou” into a glide of true elegance. As Gaston warns, in order to truly see Gigi, one must be careful not to stand too close or back too far.

 

* Gigi is also made drunk, in a later scene, while she dines with her Aunt who is teaching her to properly consume wine.

 

Los Angeles, June 14, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (June 2014).

My Queer Cinema Index [with former World Cinema Review titles]

Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [Former Index to World Cinema Review with new titles incorporated] (You may request any ...