The Philadelphia Story (Cukor, 1940) began as a play by Philip Barry that ran on Broadway during the 1939-1940 season. [1] Barry started work on the play with Katherine Hepburn in mind for the lead part, and he contacted her about it before he was even finished writing it. At the time, Hepburn had just finished filming Holiday (Cukor, 1938), and was taking a break from Hollywood. Despite the success of her latest film, Hepburn had taken much criticism for her unconventional acting style, and was uncertain about what her next move should be. The Philadelphia Story provided her with a new role with which to distinguish herself on the stage, and also, as it turned out, to make a comeback into the world of film [2] Hepburn was so impressed with the script for the play that she bought the movie rights to it. After it became a hit, she sold the rights to M.G.M. on condition that she star in the movie along side two other top name actors. She intended to use the film as a comeback vehicle. [3] A glance at the response to the film at its time of release testifies to the good sense of her decision. The film was well received by critics and audiences alike, and while reviews were critical of certain elements, it seems safe to say that it was an instant success.
The Philadelphia Story had several things going for it when it came out. One was its highly successful run as a play, first on Broadway, and then on national tour. This had generated positive publicity both for the story and for Katherine Hepburn's performance. Another was the casting of well-known actors in it, including not one, but two male leads: Cary Grant and James Stewart. Both these facts seem to have been a major part of the publicity campaign. Movie posters for the film highlighted the three major actors: Hepburn, Grant, and Stewart, [4] as did the original movie trailer. The trailer also makes reference to the play's popular success, [5] and the poster promotes the movie as "Broadway's howling year-run comedy hit". [6]
Reviews of the movie upon its release reiterate these facts. The authors of the reviews collected seem to assume that their readers are already familiar with The Philadelphia Story, at least by reputation. Otis Ferguson begins his review of the movie with a comparison to the play, and seems to think that it would be a waste of time to summarize the plot, since the audience already "know[s] the story". [7] The Variety reviewer claims that the movie is "faithful until it hurts" [8] to the play, which is a bit of an exaggeration, considering that the movie contains several all-new scenes. Meanwhile The New York Times has no problem with revealing the movie's ending. [9]
The reviews also focus much positive attention on the actors in the movie, indicating the skill with which casting decisions were made. The entire cast is universally praised, with Ferguson and The New York Times paying special notice to James Stewart. [10] Curiously, none of the articles makes reference to any of the actors' previous work, either for comparative purposes, or to assist audience recognition. It is hard to say why this might be the case. It is possible that the major stars were too well-known to need references. Ferguson says that James Stewart "adds another star to his honor chart" [11] with the film, and Variety says of Stewart, Cary Grant, and Roland Young, "there's little to be said that past reputation hasn't established." [12] On the other hand, the minor actors are given similar treatment, although it seems unlikely that the audience can have been familiar with every single one of them. Perhaps none of them had been in anything worth mentioning. However, given that all the actors are treated the same way, it seems more likely that it simply wasn't standard practice to list an actor's screen credits when promoting a new film. It is rather assumed that the audience is - or at least should be - familiar with the stars already.
Most important was the reaction to Katherine Hepburn's own performance, which is fairly glowing. Bosely Crowther of the Times writes, "Some one was rudely charging a few years ago that Miss Hepburn was 'box-office poison.' If she is, a lot of people don't read labels - including us." [13] That is a definite improvement over the treatment she received from a different reporter in the same paper's review of Holiday. Frank Nugent dismisses her performance in the earlier film as "mannish", and says, "We can't get over our feeling that her intensity is apt to grate on a man." [14] Either Crowther has more respect for good acting, or Hepburn's performance in The Philadelphia Story is simply better suited to 1940s tastes. Variety identifies The Philadelphia Story as her comeback, and although it goes on to say, "Whether it means she has reestablished herself in pictures is something that can't be said from this viewing," [15] it has nothing to say against her. Ferguson, who also makes reference to her performance in the play, is almost poetic in his praise of her "peculiar dry radiance and intelligence," and "metallic and even-mannered voice finding its special beauty." [16]
It is interesting in this context to note that none of the reviews offers any criticism of the arguably antifeminist subtext of The Philadelphia Story, which essentially takes Katherine Hepburn's "rarefied" image, and "discovers a way to bring her down to earth." [17] Although accused of intolerance, the character of Tracy Lord expresses understandable contempt for her father's philandering, her ex-husband's alcoholism, and for Spy magazine's invasiveness. A progressive analysis might well take the blame from off her shoulders, and question instead the almost reactionary forces exerted against her. However, The New York Times is content to label the her, "a rather priggish and disagreeable miss," [18] and Ferguson describes her almost offensively as a "high-strung but overpetted thoroughbred who must be broken to be released into the good stride of her nature." [19] Ferguson even suggests that, in the interest of time, "They might have cut out the boob move of the writer proposing at the wedding," [20] eliminating one of Tracy's most self-assertive moments, when she refuses a last-minute marriage proposal.
There are other ways in which the reviewers seem to see The Philadelphia Story differently from how a modern audience might. One notable thing about the reviews is that they concentrate on the upper-class status of the main characters. The New York Times calls it "an unblushing apologia for plutocracy," requiring "a little patience for the lavishly rich," [21] and Variety refers to the protagonist as "a bit of rather useless uppercrust." [22] This probably reflects the social situation of the time, when the memory of the depression was still fresh in the United States, and poking fun at the rich was common for movies. Here again, Holiday provides a useful point of comparison. Both movies are adapted from plays by Philip Barry, but Holiday is much more openly critical of the moneyed classes it depicts than The Philadelphia Story. Reviewers of 1938 seem to have found that fact appealing. Variety calls it "timely against the economic and social background of today," [23] and the Times says, "It gives one a vicarious contempt for Fifth Avenue millions." [24] In that film, the rich girl played by Katherine Hepburn is rescued from complacent mediocrity by the industrious young man of the people. In the later one, it is the "man of the people" she must be rescued from in order to remain within her own upper-class social circle. The Philadelphia Story takes an anti-confrontational attitude towards class issues, making it fairly apolitical in an era when there was a great deal of political material to work with, from the Great Depression (a subject dealt with the same year in The Grapes of Wrath, Ford), to the war in Europe (The Great Dictator, Chaplin).
Another notable point is that some of the reviewers seem to find the film overlong, with Variety accusing it of getting mired in a "bog of abstraction" [25] in the middle. Perhaps in 1940, one-hundred and twelve minutes was considered long, at least for a film dealing with such an "inconsequential subject," [26] and the audience, or at least the reviewers, found so much introspection unwelcome in what is supposedly a light, romantic comedy. It is certainly true that some of the film's latter passages are slower and more sedate compared to its manic first half-hour. Ferguson expresses the wish that they had "clipped lines of dialogue all along in the interest of general motion." He also offers the suggestion of "extend[ing] the very funny business at the expense of Timelife." [27] This reference to the magazine, also mentioned in Variety, [28] was apparently topical at the time. Ferguson describes an image of a movie patron exiting the theatre and "trundling up with a ring in its nose to the same newsstand afterward," [29] indicating that such magazines were popular among the theatregoing crowd. Much the same situation exists today, but magazines have changed somewhat in content and style, and the Timelife joke was probably more accessible back then than it is today.
The oddest thing in any of these reviews, from a modern perspective, is the rather stern parental advisory given by the Variety reviewer, who says, "It's definitely not a celluloid adventure for wee lads and lassies and no doubt some of the faithful watchers-out for other people's souls are going to have a word about that." [30] Although none of the other reviews express such reserve, this passage still speaks to a Puritanism that is laughable by today's standards. It is worth noting that in the process of adaptation from stage to screen, the script has been toned down almost as much as possible without destroying the plot. [31] Still Variety talks about screenwriter Donald Ogden Stewart "boldly" reproducing "the famed swimming pool episode, which caused some tsk-tsking and brow-hiking on Broadway," [32] although this scene is pretty much pivotal to the narrative. By modern-day standards, The Philadelphia Story is easily family entertainment, and Variety's warning indicates the power of moral censorship in the 1940s.
Overall, however, the impression given by the reviews is a highly positive one. Crowther calls it "a sleek new custom-built comedy," and says that "If it doesn't play out this year and well along into next they should turn the Music Hall into a shooting gallery." [33] Katherine Hepburn won the New York Film Critics award for best actress that year. [34] The movie went on to become one of the highest-grossing films of 1941, and was nominated for six Academy Awards, of which it won two: Best Actor, and Best Screenplay. [35]
The long-term results of the deal between Katherine Hepburn and M.G.M. are well-known: The Philadelphia Story became a classic, and Katherine Hepburn became one of the most famous actresses of all time. However, classics are not always spotted upon their original release. While the reviews collected could not predict the staying power of the movie, they do indicate that the initial response to The Philadelphia Story was a universally positive one, meaning that this particular classic was at least appreciated in its own time.
1. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety Film Reviews 1907-1980 6 (1983): November 27, 1940.
2. Gary Carey, Cukor & Co.: The Films of George Cukor and His Collaborators (New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 1971) 71-81.
3. Patrick McGilligan, George Cukor: A Double Life (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1991) 161.
4. Susan Sackett, The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits, (New York, NY: Billboard Books, 1996) 35.
5. Susan Sackett, The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits, (New York, NY: Billboard Books, 1996) 35.
6. Sackett, 35.
7. Otis Ferguson, "The Philadlephia Story," American Film Criticism: From Beginnings to Citizen Kane, ed. Stanley Kauffman & Bruce Henstell (New York, NY: Liveright, 1972) 405.
8. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
9. Bosley Crowther, "The Philadelphia Story," The New York Times Film Reviews 1913-1968 3 (1970): 1758.
10. Ferguson, 405. Crowther, 1758.
11. Ferguson, 405.
12. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
13. Crowther, 1758.
14. Frank S. Nugent, "Holiday," The New York Times Film Reviews 1913-1968 2 (1970): 1510.
15. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
16. Ferguson, 405.
17. Carey, 80.
18. Crowther, 1758.
19. Ferguson, 405.
20. Ferguson, 405.
21. Crowther, 1758.
22. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
23. "Holiday," Variety Film Reviews 1907-1980 6 (1983): May 18, 1938.
24. Nugent, 1511.
25. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
26. Crowther, 1758.
27. Ferguson, 405.
28. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
29. Ferguson, 405.
30. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
31. Philip Barry, The Philadelphia Story (New York, NY: Samuel French, 1942).
32. "The Philadelphia Story," Variety.
33. Crowther, 1758.
34. "Screen Awards Are Presented By the Critics at a Reception," The New York Times Film Reviews 1913-1968 3 (1970): 1760.
35. Sackett, 35.
Barry, Philip. The Philadelphia Story. New York, NY: Samuel French, 1942.
Carey, Gary. Cukor & Co.: The Films of George Cukor and His Collaborators. New York, NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 1971.
Crowther, Bosley. "The Philadelphia Story." The New York Times Film Reviews 1913-1968 3 (1970): 1758.
Ferguson, Otis. "The Philadlephia Story." American Film Criticism: From Beginnings to Citizen Kane. Ed. Stanley Kauffman & Bruce Henstell. New York, NY: Liveright, 1972. 404-405.
"George Cukor Movie Trailer Gallery." The Philadelphia Story. DVD. Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video Inc., 2005. Disc 1.
"Holiday." Variety Film Reviews 1907-1980 6 (1983): May 18, 1938.
McGilligan, Patrick. George Cukor: A Double Life. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1991.
Nugent, Frank S. "Holiday." The New York Times Film Reviews 1913-1968 2 (1970): 1510-1511.
Sackett, Susan. The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits. New York, NY: Billboard Books, 1996.
"Screen Awards Are Presented By the Critics at a Reception." The New York Times Film Reviews 1913-1968 3 (1970): 1760-1761.
"The Philadelphia Story." Variety Film Reviews 1907-1980 6 (1983): November 27, 1940.
Comments: Your essay on this film demonstrates impeccable and extensive research, and you also choose wisely key details from the reviews to guide your overall analysis. The paper is very well organized, with clear transitions between ideas, and covers a great deal of material in a concise, persuasive manner. Your introduction, specifically your thesis, needs some revising so as to better highlight the excellent structure and ideas of your essay; see my comments on your thesis construction for suggestions of how to refine/expand the thesis. And your phrasing could benefit from a few more revisions, specifically in terms of avoiding too tentative a tone when analyzing material. Overall, though, the writing, like your thinking, is eloquent. Really excellent work.
Mark: 90%