I expect the movie's serious side took a backseat to Holliday's overpowering comedic performance. Her Billy Dawn is certainly Oscar-worthy in that year's heavy competition. Who can forget the Minnie Mouse voice, the big saucer eyes and sweetly naïve manner. Together, they combine into a career performance in what's a slyly demanding role. But especially, I love that gin game with the exasperated Harry. Billy seems so scatter-brained and he so focused, it's almost like seeing Al Capone get bested by Daffy Duck. What an expert piece of comedic architecture— in my book, it's the movie's and Crawford's best moments.
Speaking of Crawford, he's so consistently loud and abusive, his Harry the junk man (how appropriate) amounts to almost a cartoon character in itself. Director Cukor was known as a woman's director, so maybe that's why Crawford goes over the top. But whatever the reason, he's much too much. The overbearing Harry is supposed to be dislikable but not so dislikable that he becomes a caricature. On a slightly different plane, note how the sexual conventions of the time are slyly finessed—the sleeping arrangements, Billy's withholding sex after the gin game, the suspicious hundred dollars her dad refuses, etc. These amount to a more suggestive screenplay than usual for that straitjacketed time.
As funny as the movie is, it still adds up to more than just an expert amusement. There's a substantial subtext worth remarking on. For example, the moral of the screenplay is a clear one—no tyranny over people's minds. That lesson, of course, applies to Billy in spades, though she acts it out in highly amusing fashion. As the domineering Harry's silken mistress, she shows a tyrannized, inhibited silence in the film's first part— which is also why she so cleverly annoys Harry during that delicious card game. The ex-show girl may be a well-kept victim (check out her suitcases in the hotel lobby), but she's a victim no less, not only of Harry's abuse, but of her own difficult background, as well. The trouble is she's also a victim of her own assumptions and expectations about herself.
Thus, when writer- educator Paul (Holden) arrives on the scene, he arrives as a potential liberator, bringing her both respect and ideas. But he's got to free her not only from Harry, but from her past dependent self, as well. Those tutoring scenes in the nation's capital with its inscribed democratic ideals are well chosen. The ideals, as we learn, apply not only to nations, but to individuals, as well. So when Billy finally recognizes how the two converge, she opens up a new independence of mind and personhood she never realized were waiting there to be freed. And when she finally leaves Harry for Paul, with just a few clothes, she's in effect chosen the 'happy peasant' over the powerful man (Napoleon) and the movie's moral parable is complete.
Nonetheless, there are limits to these lessons. For example, the national monument scenes need not be so reverential since democracy itself remains an ideal, not a religion to be worshipped; at the same time, the 'founding fathers', for all their gifts, were only mortal men and not the gods of a religion. Moreover, the happy peasants of the script don't usually take the risks that drive a history of social and economic progress. Harry may not exemplify this worthy type of risk-taking, but there are limits, I believe, to the 'happy peasant' as a paradigm for an entire society.
Of course, the comedic side of the movie means these more serious points can't be made too subtle or controversial, otherwise the funny parts would be undermined. But I can't help wondering just for the fun of it about the casting. Suppose that instead of the handsome Holden as Billy's catalyst, an ordinary looking man were there instead. Then I wonder how Billy would respond. Or instead of the bullying Crawford, suppose someone less good at being obnoxious were cast. But, of course, much of the movie's satisfaction comes from seeing this nasty guy and his plush prison get rejected.
None of this is meant to take away from the superb comedic side of the movie. But the exceptional appeal of the material (Kanin and Mannheimer) is that it so neatly combines the laughs into food for thought and both of them into a single entertaining package. But above all, the movie remains a superb showcase for one of the best comediennes of that day or this. What a loss that she died so young. Fortunately, the laughs remain.
Speaking of Crawford, he's so consistently loud and abusive, his Harry the junk man (how appropriate) amounts to almost a cartoon character in itself. Director Cukor was known as a woman's director, so maybe that's why Crawford goes over the top. But whatever the reason, he's much too much. The overbearing Harry is supposed to be dislikable but not so dislikable that he becomes a caricature. On a slightly different plane, note how the sexual conventions of the time are slyly finessed—the sleeping arrangements, Billy's withholding sex after the gin game, the suspicious hundred dollars her dad refuses, etc. These amount to a more suggestive screenplay than usual for that straitjacketed time.
As funny as the movie is, it still adds up to more than just an expert amusement. There's a substantial subtext worth remarking on. For example, the moral of the screenplay is a clear one—no tyranny over people's minds. That lesson, of course, applies to Billy in spades, though she acts it out in highly amusing fashion. As the domineering Harry's silken mistress, she shows a tyrannized, inhibited silence in the film's first part— which is also why she so cleverly annoys Harry during that delicious card game. The ex-show girl may be a well-kept victim (check out her suitcases in the hotel lobby), but she's a victim no less, not only of Harry's abuse, but of her own difficult background, as well. The trouble is she's also a victim of her own assumptions and expectations about herself.
Thus, when writer- educator Paul (Holden) arrives on the scene, he arrives as a potential liberator, bringing her both respect and ideas. But he's got to free her not only from Harry, but from her past dependent self, as well. Those tutoring scenes in the nation's capital with its inscribed democratic ideals are well chosen. The ideals, as we learn, apply not only to nations, but to individuals, as well. So when Billy finally recognizes how the two converge, she opens up a new independence of mind and personhood she never realized were waiting there to be freed. And when she finally leaves Harry for Paul, with just a few clothes, she's in effect chosen the 'happy peasant' over the powerful man (Napoleon) and the movie's moral parable is complete.
Nonetheless, there are limits to these lessons. For example, the national monument scenes need not be so reverential since democracy itself remains an ideal, not a religion to be worshipped; at the same time, the 'founding fathers', for all their gifts, were only mortal men and not the gods of a religion. Moreover, the happy peasants of the script don't usually take the risks that drive a history of social and economic progress. Harry may not exemplify this worthy type of risk-taking, but there are limits, I believe, to the 'happy peasant' as a paradigm for an entire society.
Of course, the comedic side of the movie means these more serious points can't be made too subtle or controversial, otherwise the funny parts would be undermined. But I can't help wondering just for the fun of it about the casting. Suppose that instead of the handsome Holden as Billy's catalyst, an ordinary looking man were there instead. Then I wonder how Billy would respond. Or instead of the bullying Crawford, suppose someone less good at being obnoxious were cast. But, of course, much of the movie's satisfaction comes from seeing this nasty guy and his plush prison get rejected.
None of this is meant to take away from the superb comedic side of the movie. But the exceptional appeal of the material (Kanin and Mannheimer) is that it so neatly combines the laughs into food for thought and both of them into a single entertaining package. But above all, the movie remains a superb showcase for one of the best comediennes of that day or this. What a loss that she died so young. Fortunately, the laughs remain.