It's HBR episode 2937 for the 5th of November 2019.
Today's show isn't titled His Girl Friday, and it's part of the series Lord Deez Film Review.
It's hosted by Lost and Bronx, is 49 minutes long,
carries a clean flag, and is licensed under a CC-0 license.
The summary is, Lost and Bronx reviews an old scrupole comedy.
For your information, the link given in the show itself is a bit outdated,
so if you can go to the show notes, you'll find a link to a better copy of the movie.
Enjoy!
This episode of HBR is brought to you by AnanasToast.com.
Get 15% discount on all shared hosting, with the offer code HBR15.
That's HBR15.
Bit your web hosting that's Aniston Fair at AnanasToast.com.
Hello, this is Lost and Bronx, and this is the first episode of a new series
or part of a series that I'm calling Lord Deez Film Reviews.
Now, the explanation of this series takes a little setup, and I'll only do this once in this
first episode, but basically Lord Deez refers to Lord Dragonblood, who is a fairly well-known
member of this community who passed away a few years ago, much respected, much loved,
and he was kind of ubiquitous in the free software Linux scene and in this community specifically
HPR and Linux podcasting in general, but I didn't know him that way.
He also did a podcast called Ten Book Review, which basically he would buy these cheap little
films from the bargain bin in the store that worked $10 or less, and he would review them.
And many of them were terrible films, even if they weren't beat films per say,
these were films that generally didn't do very well at the box office and got marked down
and put out on DVD, and these were the sorts of movies that he would review.
Well, I did a review for that podcast, a public domain film that I got off of archive.org,
and he was very gracious, he put it on the show, and it was very nice, it was very nice of him.
So, this series is in memory of him, because he was a great guy, and a lot of people
miss him quite a bit. Probably a better memorial to Lord Deez would be something in the
free software Linux vein, but as I say, I didn't really know him in that arena.
I knew him in this one, so this is what I'm doing, because it's kind of an area that I have an
interest in, so here we go. Now, this also dovetails into a series that I did recently called
Random Elements of Storytelling, in which I would talk about particular aspects of storytelling,
often using movies or television as an example, but also novels are really almost anything that
tells a story, and I'm pulling some topics from that to use as my criteria for assessing
films that I have seen. So, basically, there are five different categories that I'll be judging things
by, and these categories are rated 0, 1, or 2, and that allows us a range from 0 to 10 points or stars,
or whatever, let's say 10 points, because I don't know, for no particular reason. So, 0 to 10 points
for each category, in each category, we're going to be asking two questions. If the answer is no,
it's a zero. So, we end up with a zero in that category. If the answer to both questions is no,
we end up with a one, if the answer to one of the questions is no, and the other one is yes.
And, of course, we end up with two points if both answers are yes. 0 to 2 for each category.
All right, now, the categories cover these five topics. Plot main characters, genre,
construction, and payoff. Now, more or less, I've spoken about every one of these topics
in that previous series. So, if you did listen to those, this stuff won't be unfamiliar to you
in context of the way that I'll be assessing this. So, plot, the two questions are, does the plot
make sense, and is it free of large plot holes? No, I put that into one question, because too many
plot holes, and it stops making sense. So, basically, does it make sense? Okay, does the plot make sense?
And, does the plot seem original or original enough, or put it in another way,
does it seem to be free of hackneyed elements? Now, we know that there's nothing original under
the sun. There's no such thing as a new idea necessarily, or when one comes along, it's really
quite a big deal. We won't be looking at it like that. What we'll be looking at is whether or not
within context of this story does the plot seem to be more or less fresh. If you have a plot
that you've seen a bunch of times, and you're kind of sick of it, that's a no there, right?
If it's one that you've seen a bunch of times, but this seems to be a new spin, or they did it
really, really well, that's it. Yes, or maybe it's one you've either never seen before, or you rarely
see, or you've never seen perhaps associated with some other aspect of the film that we'll be talking
about, such as genre, or the type of characters that are involved. So, the answer could be
yes or no, quite easily, just depending upon whether or not we've seen a lot of this recently,
and how well it was handled. Okay, main characters, are they realistic? Do we believe them?
You know, again, we look at these characters and say, yeah, that seems like somebody you could
mean in real life, or that seems like somebody who's perfect for this story, because don't forget
if we're looking at a wacky comedy with over-the-top sorts of characters, you don't run into those
people in real life necessarily, but they work beautifully for that particular story. So, realism
is not real. We have to understand that distinction. Realism works in context of the story.
So, that question, yes or no, but again, we'll be, we'll be discussing it when we come across it.
Also, main characters, do we care about them? These might be real characters, but if they're
all either boring or unpleasant, and we just don't care what happens to them, that's a fail.
We're supposed to care what happens to these people. They don't have to be sympathetic,
but they at the very least have to be interesting. If we don't get that, that's a fail.
All right, next is genre. Now, under the genre category, we've got, does this genre work well
for the plot? Sometimes they're just sort of mashed in there. You have this story and it's
mashed into a particular genre. Now, the genre might just be quote-unquote drama. That's fine.
That's valid. And we won't go much further with that. Unless the story is kind of not working
under that distinction. All right, and the other question for genre is, what another genre
work better for this plot, or the story that we're trying to tell? So, it is possible to have
an adventure tale that maybe it's a western, but it probably would work better if it was just
set in the modern city. It does happen. You do run into tales like that. Movies like that.
So, yes or no, does it work within that genre? Or could it work better somewhere else?
All right, the next category is construction. Now, construction is kind of a conflated term
because I'm including the acting, right? That's the first question. Is the acting good?
Does the acting work? Are the actors doing their jobs? Well, now, I have relegated this
to a single question, whereas very often we're used to judging an entire film based on the
performances. I'm more focused on story. Anyone who's heard me talk before knows that's really
where my love is. I'm looking for a good story. So, yes, acting is represented in these reviews,
but it is downgraded in importance. I'm less concerned about the acting. Unless, of course,
the acting so bad at damages the film, but we'll reflect that with our point category.
All right, that's the first question under construction. The second one you might be able to guess.
It has to do with direction. It has to do with production values. It has to do with editing.
All of that stuff, again, I'm downgrading the importance of it because I'm more focused on story.
However, understand that editing is an integral part of storytelling when it comes to movies.
It's possible that perhaps I shouldn't downgrad it's so much to one half of one category,
but you got to pick your battles, and that's where I'm putting that. So, those two categories,
acting, and then production. And the final category is payoff. All right, the payoff,
that was a whole topic in that previous series that I did. And basically, it's the ending of the film.
Now, we're not necessarily talking about a twist ending. We're not talking about wrapping up a
mystery story or anything like that. We're talking about what you're walking away with.
So, the questions, the two questions under this category are,
did the filmmakers accomplish what they seem to set out to do when the film started. In other words,
by the end of the film, do you think they did their job right? Did they pull it all off?
This is an impression you're going to have by the end of the film. Did they pull off
what they attempted to do? So, you can have a beef film that's shlocky, that's grind house, that's
terrible, by most standards, and yet it can get a nice fat yes on that question because that's what
they were attempting to do. And if they pulled it off, then they get a yes in that category. And
now the second question is the ending emotionally satisfying? And that's a very, very important one.
Now, understand again, emotionally satisfying doesn't mean a happy ending. It doesn't mean that
everything's all sunshine and rainbows for our characters. It can be a tragedy. It could end up being
terrible. It doesn't have to be a happy ending by any means. That doesn't matter at all.
In context of this question, what that means is, did they pull all their threads together
emotionally so that when the story's over and I'm thinking back on it, do I feel like something
was left out? Do I feel like this should have gone somewhere else? This was a mistake. The way they
ended it was a mistake. It's how it leaves me feeling with the way the film ends. Am I emotionally
satisfying? So, with that overview done, let's get into my first review. Okay, I decided to pull over
and park as I got to read this thing. So, the name of the film is his Girl Friday. It's at
archive.org slash details slash his underscore girl underscore Friday. It's a public domain film
and it's considered a romance slash comedy. Here's the description from archive.org.
hilarious, romantic comedy starring Carrie Grant and Rosalind Russell. Russell is a rough and
tumble reporter looking to get out of the news racket by marrying and becoming a housewife
after her divorce from newspaper publisher Grant. Just when she is about to leave town with her
husband to be, the still love sick Grant drafts her to cover one final breaking news sensation.
Along with plenty of laughs and fast-paced dialogue, this film provides a witty and cynical look at
news business. There is a slight audio sync problem in the first couple minutes of the film.
It is present on the source medium and is very brief. Now, that was right there on archive.org.
I actually didn't notice this sync problem, but there was a reason for that and I'll get to it later.
It's a black and white film and it is a sound film. It was directed by Howard Hawks.
The runtime is one hour 31 minutes and 44 seconds and the year came out was 1940.
Okay, we'll just jump right into this. First, plot. Does it make sense and or is it free of
huge holes? Yes, yeah, by and large it does make sense. Understanding that it is a screwball
comedy. Nothing actually makes sense when you compare it to the real world, but within the context
of the film itself, it actually does. There are tons and tons of plot holes and dangling things
and stuff that isn't wrapped up and we just don't care. It's so fast-paced, it just flies by and
you don't think about it again. Okay. Next question, is it original or does it seem to be?
Frankly, the answer is no. I say no because when his girlfriend came out, it was already a remake.
Another film version of this had come out in the 30s and it was based on a famous Broadway
stage play called The Front Page and again I'll talk more about that later. There had been several
versions of it. Many people already knew about it by that point and of course since then I'm looking
at this with, you know, 2019 eyes and I got to tell you we've seen a lot of this again and again
and again. It's very classic stuff, but even at that time, I don't think it was all that original
to see this sort of crazy news story kind of stuff. Even on a comedic sense, there were a lot of
films made in the 30s that were like this. Many of them owed a lot to the front page which
had come out a little bit earlier and I mean the stage play, but by this point by 1940 a lot of
people had seen this. So there you go. All right, main characters, are they realistic? Again,
within context of this story, yes they are. In the real world, no, they wouldn't be. They're
ridiculous. In the real world are over the top. They're just non-sensical, but within context
of the film, yes they absolutely are. Next question, do you care about them? Yes, I do. I found
them funny. I found them charming. I found them attractive. They're interesting too. The things
that we're doing was interesting. Their flaws were interesting. We wanted to know more about them.
We wanted to see where this was going. So yes, I did care about them. Okay, next category,
genre. Does it work for the plot? Yes, however, there are other ways it can be approached. All right,
the next question of course is, is this the best genre for this tale? No, I think it is. So that's
a yes. All right, but it is not the only one that you could use. We have seen this sort of plot
done in thrillers and crime stories, right? Within this tale, at one point, Rosalind Russell's character
comes in contact with this guy who is on death row and he's going to be executed, but he's escaped
and he takes her hostage and it's all played for laughs and it's all really funny, but that could
very easily, very easily be a thriller. It could very easily be a mystery story, but there's a
conspiracy against him to try to railroad him into an execution there. It could all be done,
very, very differently. This could be a very different genre. However, I think it works best
as a comedy. So that gets a yes from me. All right, the next category, construction,
is the acting competent for the tale. That's an easy yes. You got Carrie Grant, who's
mouth is flying a mile a minute. You've got Rosalind Russell who's doing the exact same thing.
The secondary characters are all delightful. The actors do a tremendous job with all these people.
They may come seem just perfect for this tale acting was absolutely competent. Absolutely.
Next question, is the production and or editing competent? Now, I say no, and that might be
heretical. This is Howard Hawks who was a film legend in Hollywood. But I still say no, and the reason
being is like many stage plays that are adapted to the screen. This looks like it was a stage play,
adapted for the screen. There's an awful lot of standing around in a single room because that's
the way it was written for the stage. Right at the very beginning of the film, they spend time in
the newsroom, and then they spend time in a restaurant. But then finally they go to the prison,
and there's a press room in the prison. And that's where the rest of the film takes place.
Outside of a few quick, John's out into the city. The staging was wrong for this film.
They needed to break out. It becomes really claustrophobic. It really does. And I think they
needed to move out from that one set. Finally, the last category, pay off. Did the filmmakers
manage to do what they seem to be intending? I'm giving that a no. In my opinion, Howard Hawks
didn't reach what he was after. I know I'm in the minority on this. This is kind of considered an
old Hollywood classic. However, I feel like this thing could have been more. I think by expanding
it out into more than just that room for the last 80% of the movie, I think this film could have
grown some wings and really could have sort. As it stands, it's a classic example of a screwball
comedy from that era in Hollywood from 1940, but I don't consider it a classic film in and of itself.
Howard Hawks did not grab the brass ring on this thing. He got close, but he didn't do it.
And the final question, are you emotionally satisfied when the film is over? Well, despite my
criticisms, yes, I think it was a very pleasant film. It was funny, laugh out loud, funny, and
several occasions. The characters, they have a happy ending. Yeah, as I say, there are some big
holes, but you don't think about those because it raised to a happy ending. We're satisfied.
You leave the film, you say, oh, that was really pleasant, and you remember it fairly fondly. Yes,
I felt emotionally satisfied. So my final score is a 7 out of 10. Now, that's not bad. Not great,
but really better than average. I think it was pretty good. So I got some notes. I do have some notes
for this thing, and I have a lot of it here, so I'm just going to read it straight. First one,
this film was an adaptation of the famous stage play, the front page, which was written by
real-life Chicago newspaper men, Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur. That ran on Broadway from 1928 to
29, and was revived on Broadway four times after that, most recently in 2016. So this is still a very
current play. People still love this thing, and they still returned to it. It was turned into a
musical called Windy City, which played in London and elsewhere over the years. It's been adapted
to radio and film numerous times. In this version of it, his girlfriend, which switched the main
lead from male to female and added a romantic subplot, was even adapted back to the stage in 2013.
So you have the front page, which was adapted to the screen as his girlfriend, which then,
later on, was adapted back to a stage play, including the romantic subplot.
Rosalind Russell's character on the stage play for Broadway is a man. They rewrote this to
make that character a woman and not just a woman, but the ex-wife of Carrie Grant so that we have
this romantic tension floating throughout the entire story. They're still in love with each other,
but they drive each other crazy. It's that sort of thing. And by changing that, they really do
give more nuance to this tale. It isn't just a news story. It's also a romance. It's also a sweet
tale about these two misfits who really can't do anything but dig up dirt and report on stories.
That's what they're best at. And they can't really do it without each other. This play has had
nods in media as diverse as science fiction novels and superhero comic books. And virtually every
single presentation of a newsroom or reporters in the 20th century and beyond where their
comedic or serious has been influenced by this story to some degree. Okay, next point.
There are numerous race issues noticeable immediately in this film, including some outright
slurs. Modern apologists might chalk them up to simply being how news reporters spoke back
then. It's not how reporters spoke back then. It's how white people spoke back then. And yes,
there are no people of color in the entire film, even though an important plot point rests on
the African American community of Chicago. This film is very much a product of its time.
Okay, and the next point, it's a funny film. Despite my criticisms, it's a witty, very fast-paced
goof of a tale with lots of twists and turns. The next point, the title, his Girl Friday,
doesn't make any sense at all. I don't know what decisions went on in altering the title from
the front page, but Rosalind Russell's character is a respected news reporter in this movie,
not anyone's assistant. So there's no logical reason for this particular title. I suspected
something to do with marketing, which is fair enough, but why they didn't go with something at least
semi-accurate is a mystery. Okay, and finally, the internet archive copy that I watched
is really lousy, and I grabbed the highest resolution copy they had there. If you want to see this
film, catch it on Amazon, Netflix or your local library because the image quality on the archive.org
version is poor. It's worth it for free, perhaps, but none of you can get it elsewhere for the
same price or for no additional price than what you're already paying for other content. And that
is it, that is my review of his Girl Friday, and that is it for this first episode of Lord D's
Film Reviews. This has been Lost and Bronx. Thank you for listening. Take care.
Ever thoughts of recording a podcast, thank click on our contributing, to find out how easy
it really is. Heck, a public radio was found by the digital.com and the informomicon computer club,
and it's part of the binary revolution at binref.com. If you have comments on today's show,
please email the host directly, leave a comment on the website or record a follow up episode yourself.
On this otherwise status, today's show is released on the creative comments, attribution, shareelight,
study data relaxance.