the manly man and the effeminate womanizer
by Douglas Messerli
Harvey Thew and Seymour Hicks, screenplay
(based on the French play by Yves Mirande and
André Mouézy-Éon and the English language
adaptation by Seymour Hicks), Michael Curtiz (director) The Matrimonial Bed /
1930
The 1930 farce The Matrimonial Bed was
directed by one of Hollywood’s most successful directors, Hungarian-born
Michael Curtiz who seemed to be able to create credible works in nearly any
genre from tough guy gangster films such as Kid Galahad (1937) and Angels
with Dirty Faces (1938), cinematic swashbucklers like Captain Blood
(1935) and The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), and westerns Dodge
City (1939) and The Comancheros (1961) to noir melodramas such as Mildred
Pierce (1945), war-time love and adventure tales Casablanca (1942)
and Passage to Marseille (1944), and beloved dance and musical family
entertainments Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) and White Christmas
(1954). The range is all the more astounding given the fact that at least three
of his films, the farce I’m about to discuss, Young Man with a Horn (1950),
and the total unpredictable classic Casablanca, have substantial
portions of their narrative devoted to explicit or coded issues of interest for
LGBTQ viewers; while he, contradictorily, turned what might have been an openly
gay biopic of Cole Porter, Night and Day, into a fairly conventional
heterosexual love story. And you have to give him credit for revealing the
standardly restricted slapstick comedian Danny Kaye as the talented lean
attractive bisexual dancer he truly was in White Christmas, while in
that same movie providing Greek dancer/actor George Chakiris with one of his
earliest film roles as one of four gay-looking chorus boys sliding around and
about Rosemary Clooney as she sings, “Love, You Didn’t Do Right by Me,” a role
that might have been truthful to reality, but clearly did not hint at his true
acting and dancing abilities we would later discover. On the other hand, Curtiz
managed to transform a tough-talking gangster figure such as James Cagney into
one of the greatest hoofers in film history.
The real problem with hairdresser Leopold Trebel is that he has
forgotten everything for five years, and by movie’s end cannot forget
what he has discovered in the few hours since he arrived at Gustave Corton’s
mansion—although he would very much like to.
But since this contrivance relies very much on plot, we must return to
the beginning. The movie opens with Juliet Noblet (Florence Eldridge), now Mrs.
Corton, away from the house visiting the grave of her former husband, Adolphe
Noblet (Frank Fay). Her beloved Adolphe died 5 years ago to the day in a train
accident. Beloved by nearly everyone who knew him, one of his admirers, his
former cook, Corinne, is seen decorating the mantel with real vegetables (of which
he was evidently very fond) under a large portrait of him, just returned from
the framers who have restored it from a mysterious fall to the floor.
We
shall soon witness that “fall” when, upon returning, Madame Corton determines
that she needs a new hairdo, her maid and best friend both suggesting their
favorite hairdresser, Leopold Trebel, with whom they both are evidently having
affairs.
If
Mr. Noblet was loved by all—as both his old friends Dr. Beaudine (Arthur Edmund
Carew as Dr. Fried in the credits) and Mr. Chabonnais (James Bradbury, Sr.)
declare time again “What a man!”—Juliet’s current husband, Gustave Corton
(veteran Hollywood actor James Gleason) is a grumpy curmudgeon whom almost
everyone except Juliet dislikes. Understandably he is irritated that the
portrait of his wife’s former husband graces their parlor.
When we finally meet the womanizing hairdresser we quickly wonder, given
his eccentric affectations and seeming interest in all things sexual both
female and male, how this man has time, with a wife and two sets of male twins,
to woo his women customers as well. Let us just say that Fay’s characterization
of Leopold, who wears his apron under his coat making it appear he was wearing
a woman’s dress, is one of the gayest outside of Hollywood’s “pansy” portraits portrayed
previously on screen.
And
screenwriters Harvey F. Thew and Seymour Hicks (author of the English-language
stage play adapted from the French original) waste no time hurling out the double
entendres. Even before we meet Leopold Trebel—who we quickly discover is
Adolphe Noblet who, miraculously survived the train wreck, suffering amnesia
ever since—he is described, by the cook, as being “so gay, [with] such a smile.
So different from the new one” (meaning Juliet’s new husband Corton). Although
“gay” generally meant something else in those days, as Cary Grant’s utterance
in Bringing Up Baby (1938) makes clear, the word already had
connotations which linked it to homosexuality as early as 1930. But even if we
took all those statements to be mere heterosexual affirmations of his pleasant
spirit, the next few lines uttered by Juliet’s friend regarding her
hairdresser’s amorous activities—“He’s practiced on my head for months. And oh
when he touches you, what a thrill!”—give evidence of pre-Code hanky panky that
we won’t see in the movies again for decades.
Indeed, whenever anyone in this film wants to assert Trebel’s legitimate
credentials for his untoward activities in this film, they simply declare him
to be “an artist,” the code word for centuries for bohemian sexual behavior
and, in many instances, a queer. Trebel seems to be a bisexual interested in
everything and everyone.
Coincidentally with the hairdresser’s arrival, Noblet’s old friends
Beaudine and Chabonnais have been invited for dinner, and when Juliet, the
doctor, and the continually tippling Chabonnais catch sight of the barber they
are shocked, Beaudine, in particular, who begins plotting to discover the truth
about Trebel’s identity through hypnotism.
Once the situation has been set up, the plot suddenly becomes
immaterial, while, as one might expect, the mistaken identities are compounded
by the moment, particularly when the doctor manages through hypnotism to dispel
Trebel’s amnesia, making him aware of who he truly is/was, Adolphe Noblet,
married to Juliet, and living with her in their house. Since he now cannot
recall anything about his hairdresser self, the rest of the film is spent with
the entire cast, including Corton, Trebel’s wife Sylvaine (Lilyan Tashman), and
the nurse of Juliet’s baby son, misconceiving his behavior.
What matters now is the series of sexual innuendos, particularly when
Fay is still performing as the bisexually included Trebel.
Hardly has he entered the house, before, observing the wave in Juliet’s
hair, he suggests she shift its position: “You should turn over occasionally.”
With everyone staring at him in wonderment, he often stares back,
flirting with both his old still unrecognized friends, as well as with Juliet
and even Noblet’s devoted cook, who upon recognizing her beloved former
employer, rushes in to ask, “Master, can I kiss you?” Trebel’s answer: “Well
certainly, if it will do you any good.”
When
earlier Chabonnais suddenly grabs him and asks, “Have you blue eyes?” Trebel, suddenly turning fey, swats his former
friend’s arm, prissily responding, “Why yes!”
Although he begins to wonder if he hasn’t suddenly entered an insane
society, Trebel gamely goes along with the doctor’s seemingly sexual
approaches:
Beaudine: Will you kindly show me your chest?
Trebel: If you show me yours.
Beaudine: No, no.
Trebel: Well then, you don’t see mine.
Beaudine: Have you a four-leaf clover on your
thorax?
But
when his old friend asks him to take off his shirt, stares deeply into his
eyes, and hold his hand—preparing to hypnotize the man he is now certain is
Noblet—Trebel makes it apparent that there are limits: “I may be a hairdresser
by that doesn’t mean I hold men’s hands.” When, soon after, the doctor switches
off the lights, Trebel demonstrates that he has been right to have his
suspicions about the doctor.
Returning to his former self as Noblet, he is even more confused by the
constant embracement of Juliet’s friend and maid, who angrily assault him for
his sudden attentions to his new client Juliet and implore him to run away with
them.
The obviously more chaste Noblet prefers the company of his dear friends
and a nice hot bath. And we gradually begin to comprehend what these two close
acquaintances might have meant in their proclamations of “Oh what a man!” If
Trebel was clearly more of a woman’s man, with all the sexual connotations that
such a phrase might conjure up, Noblet was obviously more of a man’s man,
allowing for all of the associations that might cling to that term.
Yet he insists also upon his rights to enjoy his own bed with his wife, which neither Juliet nor her current husband Croton can deny him given the doctor’s warning that the full truth would result in a shock which might kill him.
The truth gradually comes out, and Noblet/Trebel must decide which life
he intends to live, the happy married “manly” man or the joyously effeminate
womanizer. When Noblet asks just what kind of man Trebel was, the doctor
responds: “You were gay, a bit dandified.”
Perceiving that Juliet is happy in her new life and that he has four
loving boys back in his house, he conspires with the doctor to pretend to
hypnotize him again in order to turn him back into Trebel.
And true to Trebel’s nature, as Noblet leaves he turns to his
unwelcoming host, suggesting that he would someday like to give him a “shave.”
A shave suggests not only a razor being applied to the hair on one’s face, but
has long meant in urban slang, “To take a penis into hand and rub it up and
down one’s cheek, mimicking the movements of the razor or shaver.” And, of
course, he is also suggesting something of danger, as in a “close shave” of the
kind Sweeney Todd applied to his customers.
So
we arrive at the situation I described earlier in which the sexually open
hairdresser cannot quite remember the names of his children. It doesn’t seem to
matter, since everyone loves him. The queerer of his two personae, in this
case, is preferable to the more normalized if charming “man’s man.” A man who
loves women and men equally wins over everyone.
Los Angeles, June 5, 2021
Reprinted from World Cinema Review and My
Queer Cinema blog (June 2021).



No comments:
Post a Comment