Review of Love Before Breakfast

Many other comments are severe about this film. Mine is certainly not. I would tend to argue on the contrary that, despite its seemingly light plot line, it could be numbered among the minor classics of the 30s screwball comedy - certainly in any case a significantly better one than some other similar Lombard pictures of the same period, such as the much thinner The Princess Comes Across. To sum it up, the main criticism targets four supposed weaknesses : a simplistic plot; a male hero who is too much of an egocentric and a bully to be loved - and/or a female heroin who is too spoiled and shrill a brat to be lovable; and last, Preston Foster, considered to lack charm for his part. Let us start with the last one. Yes, the film would certainly have been at least one notch higher with the ever charming Cary Grant rather than Foster. However maybe Grant would have been precisely that - a little too charming for the part. Many viewers do not seem to appreciate that the film is actually very ironic, if not critical, towards Scott Miller, a successful oil tycoon who is accustomed to everything always going the way he wants it - as funnily illustrated by the brief but telling boardroom scene, when he tells other administrators that he is not going to oblige them to accept his viewpoint, however he is ready to stay there a whole week until he convinces them to adopt it, as it is the best one... (actually two minutes later he leaves abruptly the meeting room when he is told that Lombard is visiting him - which belies the idea that he does not really care for her.) The story shows very clearly that what Miller lacks is the interest and the capacity to understand what makes others tick - in particular the woman he believes he loves. So if Preston Foster appears at times a bit charmless and self-centered, with blinkers on - it is because Miller his character is, and should therefore be thus depicted. At other times Miller forgets about his conquering instincts, and Foster can then become quite charming. That is also a reply to the second criticism. Yes indeed, Miller is something of an egoist, and a very heavy-handed one in his pursuit of Kay, the film does nothing to conceal or idealize his behaviour. But before using end-of-20th-century terms of harassment or even stalking, let us remember that it is a film of the 30s, moreover a comedy. Is Scott Miller heavy-handed in his courtship and sometimes very annoying? Yes indeed, Kay Colby makes the point quite eloquently and wittily. Does she therefore automatically become a victim because "he does not take no for an answer"? First, besides being very insistent, always in public places and in a fairly humoristic manner, he never applies direct pressure on her, nor does he get incensed or discouraged by her repeated rebukes. Second, yes, he keeps on insisting despite being rejected - but it so happens he is actually right to believe that her feelings towards him are by far not as negative as she pretends. And third, he actually does at a point take no for an answer - and the film wittily suggests that if this a new tactic he should have tried it earlier, as she then discovers that she misses her assiduous suitor. So he is certainly not a perfect character, but not a bad guy either. Which actually can equally be said of Kay Colby. Miller has everything - the power, the top job, the wealth, the male prerogatives. Apart from wealth, Kay has none of that. However, character-wise, they are very similar - strong-willed, independent-minded, self-centered, unyielding, everything but victims. At one stage, when she agrees to a wedding with him, she throws to him that he should not expect it to finish as the Taming of the shrew. Actually the film plays quite brightly around this theme. Miller has indeed every intention of taming her while marrying her. The only problem is that Kay is adamantly set against that : she knows that old story very well, and has no intention whatsoever to follow its pattern. Actually in every part of the film - there are several - there is a strong element of theater / comedy between them. In the first part, which on her side might be seen as some kind of probing him, the dialogue they play repeatedly is I-love-you / But-I-do-not-love-you-and-you-bore-me. If his assiduity had been really insufferable for her, she would certainly have found means to cut it short, as she says to her mother "I am free, white and 21". Truth is that, then and later on, when he feigns not to love her any more and when she resists his obvious attempts to unmask her as actually loving him, they just play a game of hide-and-seek, each of them trying not to be found out first. This point is also an answer to the last criticism, that the plot is unoriginal "because it is just the usual love triangle". Actually it is not in the least a love triangle - and it is fairly original. It reminds of 18th century French theatre, focussed on maneuvering and counter-maneuvering between two main characters in a love battle - Bill as well as the Contessina are just side props which the main characters use without really caring about them, in order to gain an advantage in their battle. That might not be very nice, but there is not much reason to feel sorry for them - first because they are at least as self-centered as Miller and Kay, second because they are not people who deeply love or suffer, third because it is shown that they will quite easily find solace in each other's arms. The ending of the film may appear extremely rushed and far-fetched. It might be so, if one is keen on verisimilitude - which is absolutely not the point, nor that of the film as a whole. Far from having to be taken seriously, it is meant as a hilarious spoof mocking usual happy ends. The captain is doing his best to marry them - but instead of listening a word of what he says, which makes them bound forever, they keep on shouting at each other which covers his voice. He asserts that he will indeed tame her, and fairly soon; she assures him he will most certainly not succeed in doing anything of the sort. From previous skirmishes between them, one would definitely believe her rather than him. While not a shrew, she certainly is his equal as to pigheadedness, for better and for worse. Will the newlyweds be happy ever after, after this most inauspicious start? Doubts may arise - they are too much alike for their own good, on the other side they are made for one another. Sparks might fly often between them in their married life - that would not be very different from the relations they have entertained during the courting period - there's no accounting for taste... Preston Sturges had some finger in the writing of the film. One strongly suspects that last scene is part of his input.