Country: US
Director: Gregory La Cava
"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people," millionaire Alexander Bullock (Eugene Pallette) remarks to a friend near the beginning of My Man Godfrey. For the next hour and a half the movie sets out to illustrate that quip, using Bullock's two daughters, his wife, and their social set as its prime examples. As hard as he tries, Alexander Bullock isn't ever able to introduce any sanity into his eccentric family, but a mystery man played by William Powell is. Powell is Godfrey Smith, a homeless man living in a packing box at the city dump who is claimed by both Bullock daughters, Cornelia (Gail Patrick) and Irene (Carole Lombard), in the film's famous opening, where the two are competing for the last item they need to win a society scavenger hunt—a real Forgotten Man. Godfrey doesn't respond to the imperious Cornelia, but he does take an immediate liking to her sweet, slightly ditzy younger sister and allows himself to be claimed by her. Irene, elated at besting her domineering sister for once, in turn takes such a shine to Godfrey that she impulsively hires him as the new family butler. For the rest of the movie we follow along as Godfrey becomes embroiled in the antics of this nutty family that practically embodies the expression "the idle rich."
One of the reasons for the popularity in the 1930s of American screwball comedies like Godfrey was the way these movies made fun of such people. While getting an eyeful of the lavish lives of the rich, audiences of the day could at the same time laugh at their idiotic behavior and their obliviousness of the economic hardships of the Depression. Many screwball comedies went no further than using the foibles of the rich as comic fodder, but some showed a genuine sense of social awareness and used their seemingly frivolous plots as pointed commentary on the huge socioeconomic gulf between the rich and the rest of the population. The opening moments of Godfrey show clearly that this is a screwball comedy with a social conscience: The camera slowly sweeps across a painted version of the New York skyline done in Art Deco style as the credits light up on the sides of buildings, until it finally stops at the Queensboro Bridge, where looming in the shadows in the foreground at the foot of the bridge is the squalor of the city dump, a homeless encampment, and the stylized painted image fades into the real thing. This is where Godfrey Smith lives.
Godfrey Smith (William Powell, right) at home at the dump |
In the end, however, it is the film's vivid, eccentric characters that really stand out against this ground of social awareness. Gruff Eugene Pallette has never been better than as the harried nominal head of the Bullock family. "I sometimes wonder whether my whole family has gone mad or it's me," he complains to Godfrey in that distinctive gravel voice. His wife Angelica (Alice Brady) is the ultimate self-centered scatterbrain, a woman who drives her husband to the verge of derangement with her fawning on her Pekingese and on her "protégé" (Mischa Auer), a sycophantic musician whose patron she has become. Elder daughter Cornelia, predatory and egotistical in an almost feline way, quickly extends the antagonism of her obsessive sibling rivalry with Irene to Godfrey—she has never gotten over being rejected by him at the scavenger hunt in favor of Irene—and does everything she can to drive him out of the family.
Eugene Pallette and Alice Brady as Alexander and Angelica Bullock |
William Powell is equally marvelous as Godfrey, one of those wily servants in the tradition of Figaro and Jeeves who are constantly outwitting their aristocratic masters. The difference here is that, as we learn well into the film, Godfrey is himself a fallen aristocrat. Powell always had the ability to project a combination of worldly sophistication and more down-to-earth qualities. Here we see Godfrey's urbanity in his scenes in the Bullock household, where he maintains a facade of formality and emotional reserve. We see his more demotic qualities in the way he relates to his fellow homeless at the dump and to an old friend from better days whom he accidentally runs across (Alan Mowbray, who is quite good). In psychological terms, this divide between the two sides of Godfrey's personality is the chief problem he faces in the film, and the account of how this situation came about explains his reticence toward Irene when she throws herself at him. Briefly, Godfrey's fall from his former circumstances is the result of an unfortunate love affair that caused him to give up on love and nearly to give up on life itself.
In many ways My Man Godfrey can be viewed as an updated fairy tale set against a background of social satire. A royal family isolated in their castle, a king at the end of his tether, a loopy queen under the influence of an evil minstrel, a wicked elder daughter victimizing a naive younger one, a wandering prince disguised as a peasant—you can almost picture the people in the film as characters in a fairy tale by Charles Perrault. As with most fairy tales, My Man Godfrey is a story of transformation. The transformative force here is Godfrey himself, who by the end of the film manages to humanize these inhumane people living in their bubble world.
The most important transformation, though, is the one Godfrey effects on Irene and himself. Through circumstances outside their control, Godfrey and Irene both have developed off-center personalities. In coming together, each restores balance to the other. She warms him up; he cools her down. She returns him to emotional life and helps him regain his humanity. He brings her down to Earth and helps her discover her own dormant humanity. As in most fairy tales, My Man Godfrey is also a tale of rescue. Irene rescues Godfrey from pessimism and despair. He rescues her from a future as a vapid, self-absorbed nitwit like her mother. His wisdom and her innocence unite to make them two complementary halves of a couple. And what a charming and beautiful couple they are.
This post was written as part of the ongoing Comedy Countdown at Wonders in the Dark, where My Man Godfrey came in at #20. Be sure to check out all the great films being covered in the countdown, which runs through late December.
This is one of my favorite films from the 1930s. Everything is spot on and I love the social commentary. However, as I have stated many times, I personally thought Godfrey should have ended up with Cornelia. Please, Lombard fans, don't lynch me. Great review, RDF.
ReplyDeletePoor Gail Patrick. In the 30s she was the female equivalent of Ralph Bellamy, the unsympathetic rival who didn't stand a chance against whoever was the female star of the movie. Maybe it was her slightly hard looks that got her typecast in this way. She always makes me think of an evil character in an animated Disney feature.
DeleteI love this movie and it's one I've been meaning to revisit. I agree with you that it's social commentary isn't as heavy handed as it could have been. Just enough to get the message across. A fine film indeed! Great review.
ReplyDeleteRaquel, most people seem to agree with you and me that the film gives the social commentary a light touch. It's definitely there but never seems to take over. The film is also good at not letting any message get in the way of the humor. It never makes me feel I'm being taught a lesson and that the comedy has gotten left behind. This quality is why I like "It Happened One Night" the best of all Capra's films of this kind.
DeleteI can't get enough of Eugene Pallette. I think any movie is made better by his appearance.
ReplyDeleteSilverscreenings, Eugene Pallette is one of my favorite character actors of the studio days. What a memorable Friar Tuck he made in "Robin Hood," my next favorite performance of his after "Godfrey."
DeleteI'm a big fan of "My Man Godfrey" - which may be saying something since Lombard's character, Irene, almost completely annoys me. Like Kim, I've always thought it might've been more interesting if Godfrey had ended up with a reformed Cornelia.
ReplyDeleteEve, there IS something child-like about Irene, and in a way she grows up in the film. I like Carole Lombard very much in "Godfrey." I will admit, though, that it took a couple of viewings for her character to grow on me, something I've not experienced with Lombard in other movies. This strikes me as her least typical performance I've seen because the character seems so unformed on the inside, whereas everything I've read about Lombard suggests that in real life she was nothing like the indecisive, waif-like Irene. I'm afraid I don't find Cornelia at all sympathetic and find her reformation at the end the thing in the movie I have most trouble accepting, even given the film's tone of whimsy.
DeleteLove the film and a perfect piece of criticism to describe it.
ReplyDeleteFilmboy, thank you. Much appreciated.
DeleteR.D., I made a comment over at Wonders in the Dark but was a bit late so not sure if you saw it - so will copy it over here too:
ReplyDeleteThis piece is a great read, with a lot to think about – I have now read it all the way through three times! Must agree this is one of the great screwball comedies and that both Powell and Lombard are excellent. I feel the film has quite a strong social message but for me the entertainment is all the better for that element of bite. I do agree with Pierre’s comment (at Wonders) about the revelation that Godfrey is really an aristocrat coming as something of a cop-out and damaging the film in its later scenes. But for me this, and the various elements of conservativism/pushing of the work ethic you trace in your review, can’t in the end take away from the power of that devastating opening that you trace, with the man picked up from the rubbish dump as a prop for a party game.
I’ve been trying to work out why it is that this film is so much greater than La Cava’s similar tale with the sexes reversed, ‘Fifth Avenue Girl’, and I think the main problem is that the latter doesn’t give much scope to Ginger Rogers and there is no chemistry between her and Tim Holt – whereas in ‘My Man Godfrey’ Powell and Lombard have loads of chemistry and the script is great, with so many good one-liners, as you say.
Judy, thank you so much for your kind and thought-provoking comments. I'd never really thought about the idea of Godfrey's background being a detriment until I read a criticism of that element in a book by Andrew Sarris, and now of course in some of the comments about the film in response to my post. But then I'd never really thought of the film as being a message movie in the way some of Capra's pictures are. (It makes an interesting comparison with Capra's film of the same year, "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," which because of the obviousness of its message I've never managed to like as much as its reputation makes me think I should.) I've always considered the acerbic social observations of "Godfrey" to be background to the plot and characters, something to give these outlandish people and their behavior a realistic ground to play against. As social criticism it's pretty mild compared to a genuine protest film.
DeleteI look upon the film as somewhere between the instructive social comedies of Capra and those comedies that either ignore or trivialize socioeconomic differences during the Depression. I think the film's social observations are important ones and give it more weight than it would otherwise have, but I just don't see that as the main point. Also there's the way Godrefy's background is necessary to explain things in the plot that would be implausible without it, like his education, his knowledge of the running of rich households like the Bullocks' and his business acumen that saves the day--and the family!
This was an excellent essay for a film I've never warmed to. I don't know why, as I like the genre, like the players, etc. but I've never liked it. I really enjoyed R.D.'s piece, and will give it another go soon.
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought it was seeing in sub standard public domain prints, until I rented the Criterion edition from my library. I still didn't like it. I suspect it may have to do with Lombard's Irene character, who I found supremely irritating. I was glad to see others thought Godfrey wound up with the wrong woman. It's odd, I love Lombard in other films - I adore "Twentieth Century" - but for me, here, she's just grating. A little Mischa Auer also goes a long way for me also, which doesn't help.
I do like Eugene Pallette in this role though, and liked his similar character with a similarly wacky family in the charming Deanna Durbin film "First Love."
I also like the title sequence very much, with the lighted marquees standing in for the credits.
With R.D's very interesting essay in mind, I will give it another go. Certainly there are other films I'm not so keen on re-visiting.
Kevin, I know what you mean about not warming up completely to certain highly praised films on the first viewing. I had this experience with, among others, "His Girl Friday," "Trouble in Paradise," and even "The Adventures of Robin Hood." But I did see enough in them to justify rewatching and was glad I did. Unfortunately, for me these are rare examples of finding qualities that I wasn't attuned to the first time around.
DeleteI too at first had reservations about Carole Lombard in "Godfrey" (I was probably expecting something more like Katharine Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby") but grew to like her although I still prefer some of her other performances to this one. I think it might be that slightly helpless little-girl quality in her interpretation of Irene that rubs some people the wrong way. More decisive characters seemed more suited to her screen personality and, from what I read, her offscreen personality too.
As for Auer, I'm on board with you on this. I've taken flak for writing that Pallette and not he should have gotten the Oscar nomination for best supporting actor. I'm just thankful that there's not more of him in the film. What there is of him is enough to get the idea across.