This film was the final highpoint of Hope's comic career and movie career, and it also was the point where Hope met his match (who was not Bing Crosby, that is, but the film's villain). In almost every comedy he made, Bob Hope insisted on being played by villains who were threatening (in the screenplay) but not in terms of being comic rivals. Take a look at them: Peter Lorre in MY FAVORITE BRUNETTE; George Coulouris in WHERE THERE'S LIFE; Lloyd Nolan in THE LEMON DROP KID; Bruce Cabot in FANCY PANTS; Francis L. Sullivan in MY FAVORITE SPY. These actors could be funny if the material is specially designed (think of Lorre as "Professor Einstein" in ARSENIC AND OLD LACE, or Coulouris - yes Coulouris - in those British "Doctor" comedies). But when facing Hope they were to be pure hard menace. Even with Crosby, the villains tend to be menace and hardly funny (Douglas Dumbrille had moments of comedy against the Marx Brothers in THE BIG STORE, but he was hardly funny in ROAD TO UTOPIA; ANTHONY QUINN was a nasty customer in both ROAD TO SINGAPORE and ROAD TO MOROCCO - although he gets burned on his bottom in one scene in the latter). In short, none of the Hope villains are meant for anything outside plot lines. If there is a fight scene and the villain gets injured (my reference to Quinn above, or Joseph Schildkraut in his comic duel with Hope in MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE) then that is just to reduce the dignity of the villain - it doesn't end his villainy.
Melvin Frank and Norman Panama based the script on a play by Elenore Brook, and since they hardly ever varied from the basic Hope plot, the differences here must be due to Brook. Normally, Hope is a weakling or coward who is mistaken for somebody of stature and strength by the villains, or who has to prove that he was framed by the villains (normally he needs outside help to do this, for while glib or sly in certain ways he is usually quite cowardly and foolish). That is not the case here. Here Hope is a talented artist, who is working for a prominent "Charles Schultz" style cartoonist (he does the background work for the panels), and who is 1) suffering from a nervous breakdown, and 2) is the rival of his boss for his ex-wife (Eva Marie Saint). Hope is seen going to a therapist several times. He is encouraged by Saint and by Pearl Bailey (sadly playing a domestic, but speaking very sensibly throughout the film anyway). In short, for a change Hope was playing a pretty realistic figure. The plot is how he regains his self-respect and Saint's love.
What really sets this film apart is the casting of the villain and the villain's character. The villain is the cartoonist, George Sanders. Finally with Sanders we have a talented villain who is also three dimensional - his character (Larry Larkin) is like Charles Schultz or Al Capp (who appears in the film). He has a well respected national comic strip, and he is more than just a comic strip writer. His point of view is reminiscent of Mark Twain, and he is seen getting baccalaureate degrees at colleges. Bailey notes there had always been a wistful, delicate humor in his strip, but recently it has gotten more serious. That is because Larry/George has been considering his position and options. He may want public office.
The situation is really well set up. Hope's character, Francis Dignan, is talented but is psychologically weak. Sanders is talented but overwhelmingly assured of himself. A sort of David and Goliath. But Sanders is not villainous like other Hope villains. He is ambitious and overbearing, but he feels his suggestions are helpful to everyone, not hurtful. It is not like any of the stylish cutthroats who are villains for wealth, power, or criminal activities (spying, sabotage). So Sanders is basically playing a bouncy, optimistic cork, who might be a tolerable individual in normal situations. He balances Hope's pessimistic character. It is quite wonderful to watch their scenes together, for (for a change) Hope's quips are actually like defensive missiles.
Hope never got such balance in any other film from a villain. So I can suggest that (with SEVEN LITTLE FOYS and BEAU JAMES) this film is his best film comedy (without Crosby, of course).
Melvin Frank and Norman Panama based the script on a play by Elenore Brook, and since they hardly ever varied from the basic Hope plot, the differences here must be due to Brook. Normally, Hope is a weakling or coward who is mistaken for somebody of stature and strength by the villains, or who has to prove that he was framed by the villains (normally he needs outside help to do this, for while glib or sly in certain ways he is usually quite cowardly and foolish). That is not the case here. Here Hope is a talented artist, who is working for a prominent "Charles Schultz" style cartoonist (he does the background work for the panels), and who is 1) suffering from a nervous breakdown, and 2) is the rival of his boss for his ex-wife (Eva Marie Saint). Hope is seen going to a therapist several times. He is encouraged by Saint and by Pearl Bailey (sadly playing a domestic, but speaking very sensibly throughout the film anyway). In short, for a change Hope was playing a pretty realistic figure. The plot is how he regains his self-respect and Saint's love.
What really sets this film apart is the casting of the villain and the villain's character. The villain is the cartoonist, George Sanders. Finally with Sanders we have a talented villain who is also three dimensional - his character (Larry Larkin) is like Charles Schultz or Al Capp (who appears in the film). He has a well respected national comic strip, and he is more than just a comic strip writer. His point of view is reminiscent of Mark Twain, and he is seen getting baccalaureate degrees at colleges. Bailey notes there had always been a wistful, delicate humor in his strip, but recently it has gotten more serious. That is because Larry/George has been considering his position and options. He may want public office.
The situation is really well set up. Hope's character, Francis Dignan, is talented but is psychologically weak. Sanders is talented but overwhelmingly assured of himself. A sort of David and Goliath. But Sanders is not villainous like other Hope villains. He is ambitious and overbearing, but he feels his suggestions are helpful to everyone, not hurtful. It is not like any of the stylish cutthroats who are villains for wealth, power, or criminal activities (spying, sabotage). So Sanders is basically playing a bouncy, optimistic cork, who might be a tolerable individual in normal situations. He balances Hope's pessimistic character. It is quite wonderful to watch their scenes together, for (for a change) Hope's quips are actually like defensive missiles.
Hope never got such balance in any other film from a villain. So I can suggest that (with SEVEN LITTLE FOYS and BEAU JAMES) this film is his best film comedy (without Crosby, of course).