This is the version I first saw and the one I fell in love with. When the 1995 version was released, I watched it but didn’t initially care for it as much though I’ve come to appreciate it for itself. However, when I think of the title “Sabrina,” it’s the Audrey Hepburn edition that immediately comes to mind.

It’s a simple Cinderella plot. Sabrina, the daughter of the chauffeur of the ridiculously wealthy Larrabee family, has been in love with the younger son of the family for years. David’s a young, handsome playboy who’s been married three times, has a different date each night and who barely even remembers that Sabrina lives on the estate. It’s not that he’s mean or cruel, it’s just that she’s not in his social circle or as sophisticated as the women he’s used to dating.

In an attempt to break her of her infatuation, Sabrina’s father sends her to cooking school in Paris. Two years later she returns, a well dressed, polished and sophisticated young woman. She and David meet at the train station and he, not recognizing her, offers her a lift home. When she directs him to his own house, he finally realizes who she is and impulsively invites her to a party the family is hosting that night.

When she arrives, David can’t keep his eyes off her to the consternation of his older brother, Linus. The family closes ranks, not because they hate Sabrina but because fooling with the daughter of a servant is considered in poor taste and the family, or make that Linus, has arranged a marriage between David and the daughter of another wealthy family, the Tysons, in order to facilitate a business merger.

Linus engineers a slight accident that will keep David out of commission for a few days until his wedding. In the meantime, it’s up to Linus to entertain Sabrina and attempt to lure her into a romance with him before gently paying her off. But as they spend time in each others company, who is falling for whom and how will it end?

Sabrina starts out as a dreamy romantic. Reaching for the moon and messing up at cooking school since she’s unhappily in love, as a fellow student tells her. Then she arrives home, so sophisticated and supposedly grown up yet she starts again with David and her dreams of their romance. But it’s not reality and doesn’t live past her few encounters with Linus – a man she’s never dreamed of and was actually a little afraid and in awe of while growing up. With him she quickly realizes she’s found the real thing and it scares her. She’s desperate to get away from him and back to David. That is until the night when she thinks she discovers that Linus loves her. Her reality crashes down on her when Linus can’t keep up the charade and reveals all.

Linus is all business and businessman. There’s a hint of a past romance gone bad but since then, he’s strictly about Larrabee industries. He has a line that reminds me of one of the 90s computer tycoons who said that if business was only about making money, it would hardly be worth coming into the office. For Linus it’s about changing the world around him for the better – about creating new things and bringing prosperity to those who’ve never had their slice of the pie. But with Sabrina, he finds himself thawing into a romantic. First he plays the part and then the part becomes him. Oh, he’ll never be a David, all suave and a playboy, he’ll reserve his soft side for his family, but he allows his inner romantic to show a little to the world and a lot to Sabrina.

And is David finally growing up? He’s on his way and looks to be stepping forward into the family business. He’s willing to force Linus’s hand and make his brother acknowledge his true feelings for Sabrina. Which highlights one of the nice aspects of the film – namely the relationship between the two brothers. It’s obvious that Linus has always taken the lead, cleaned up David’s messes as a big brother would. But the affection between them is real even if Linus gets exasperated at times.

Today, we’ve seen more of this lifestyle from TV shows and magazine spreads but in its day, the Larrabee estate on Long Island must have made an impression on movie goers. The expensive cars, the servants – though not so many as I’d expect – the lavish parties, the women’s gowns and jewels, the Larrabee Building – all must have been seen as glamorous. The class difference isn’t great today since film stars and singers can become staggeringly wealthy in a short amount of time and begin to lead this lifestyle but then, in 1954, the jump in class would have seemed greater and Fairchild’s comment about life being a car with a front and back seat and a window in between would have been more important.

Audrey Hepburn plays the dreamy eyed romantic beautifully and when David begins to pay her attention, I see it as her due as a lovely young woman instead of as a scheming, hard nosed gold digger. Even after Linus breaks her heart with the truth of his scheme, she still just takes one ticket for the ship back to France instead of all the swag the family had planned to buy her off with. She’s basically a good person who truly was in it for love and not what she could get. So when she ends up getting it all – love and the lifestyle, I can cheer and smile.

Humphrey Bogart turns out to be a marvelous choice to play Linus. The first time I saw the film, I’d never heard of it, didn’t know the plot and was taken aback that Sabrina is supposed to fall for him. For this old guy when she’s got a handsome, younger brother in love with her? By the end of the film, I would have felt cheated had she not gotten Linus. Bogart plays the role wonderfully. He’s supposed to be slightly stiff and the one who’s allowed himself to stodgify over the years. But he can also turn on the, slightly clumsy – or is?, charm and slowly chip away at Sabrina’s calm and her belief that she loves David. Bogart never pushes the role, as Linus also never pushes Sabrina. Everything is slow and steady. What Bogart does masterfully is to allow us and Sabrina to see what’s inside him. But is that longing for a woman of his own an act or real? We’re not sure and Bogart’s performance keeps us guessing until the end.

William Holden portrays the happy go lucky playboy in a way that allows us to laugh with him and not hate him for not loving Sabrina from the beginning nor be angry that he’s cheerfully planning on jilting the otherwise charming young woman Linus has picked out as Mrs. David Larrabee the fourth. After all, it’s not David falling in love with Elizabeth Tyson – it was Larrabee industries merging with Tyson. So when David kicks over the traces, we’re actually hoping that he does escape into the arms of a woman he truly loves. But in the end, we see that David still isn’t quite the man Linus is and thus we’re happy that he seems to be willing to marry Elizabeth – as Linus says, it was only a matter of time before David would eventually have proposed to her anyway.

The humor of the story isn’t forced and is both visual and linguistic. The image of Mr. Larrabee standing in Linus’s closet in order to hide his smoking from his wife is one I always remember as are his efforts to get that last olive out of the jar for his martini. Linus realizes the image he must be cutting as the much older man squiring the luminous Sabrina about town – and mockingly shows it to us by trying on his old college letterman sweater before he takes Sabrina out sailing. But the story also has hauntingly romantic scenes such as Linus and Sabrina waltzing around the indoor tennis court to the strains of “Isn’t it Romantic.”

The last scene is fantastic. Understated and all the more powerful for it. Linus shows that he’s been listening to Sabrina tell him what he needs to do in Paris – turn down the brim of his black Homburg hat and ditch his umbrella – and he does so before opening his arms and his heart to her.

Edith Head and Hubert de Givenchy both do amazing jobs with the costumes for Hepburn. Head makes her look like the innocent, sheltered, pre-Paris, young woman while Givenchy and Hepburn begin their long association here with the stylish and sophisticated couture Sabrina displays upon her return from the City of Light.

Everything about the film is elegant and simple. I think it’s aged fairly well though it does show its age by what must have been state of the art technology then – watch for the dictaphone which Linus uses in his car while being driven into the city. Plus all the secretaries at Larrabee industries are women and Linus’s office is all modern glass and chrome.

The dialogue is rapid fire and intelligent with Linus tossing off puns that float right over his brother’s head. Perhaps Cary Grant might have been more believable as a man whom a younger woman would fall for but the fact that Humphrey Bogart can pull off a performance in which I believe that Sabrina would choose him says much about his acting ability.

As Roger Ebert says, the movie is about escapism and fairy tales. I can believe them a bit more in 1954 before women’s lib than I could in 1995. I can believe that Sabrina doesn’t immediately think Linus is trying to coldly seduce her though I can see the questions that occasionally flit across her face as she wonders. I can believe that a gruff, older Linus falls for this young woman and she for him, all in the space of a few days. And I can believe in them sailing off to their HEA as the lights dim and “The End” flashes on the screen. B+

~Jayne

Related Posts:

• Friday Film Review: Rachel and the Stranger
• Friday Film Review: Say Anything
• Friday Film Review: How to Steal a Million
• Friday Film Review: The Big Easy
• Friday Film Review: The Swan
• Friday Film Review: Latter Days
• Friday Film Review: Dear Frankie
• Friday Film Review: Shaun of the Dead
• REVIEW: The Care and Taming of the Rogue by Suzanne Enoch
• Friday Film Review: Outlander

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Dear Author earns a small referral fee if you use these links to buy Harlequin books. Click only if you are interested. (Thank you to those who have been clicking and buying!).

• It's a Moonlight Madness sale.

• eBooks Backlist Bookshelf: Get 15% Off Newly Released Backlist eBooks! More eBooks just added this month!

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

When I see a film described as a screwball comedy, it’s usually my cue to run away, far, far away. So many try to achieve screwball status and so few succeed. I think maybe because they try too hard. Here director Gregory La Cava makes it look effortless.

It’s the height of the Great Depression and we get to see both sides of the coin. The film opens with a scavenger hunt which Irene Bullock (leading lady Carole Lombard) tells Godfrey Smith/Parke (leading man William Powell) is about people looking for things which aren’t wanted. In this case, it’s the men living in the City Dump. Cornelia Bullock (Gail Patrick) and her useless swain arrive there looking for a “forgotten man.” Cornelia spies Godfrey and insultingly asks him if he wants to earn $5.00. Godfrey not only turns her down, he backs her into an ash heap. Thus beginning their film long clashes.

Irene watches this then gleefully tells Godfrey she’s always wanted to do that. After speaking with him and learning about the desperate men trying to stay alive here, she offers sympathy. Learning that she’s got a chance to beat Cornelia in the game, Godfrey tells her he’ll go with her in order for her to win. Once there, he’s subjected to some demeaning questions as the idle rich engaged in the hunt swirl around him. Irene feels responsible and impulsively offers him a job as the family butler.

The next day, Godfrey arrives at the Bullock mansion and discovers what a madhouse it is. Mrs. Bullock (Alice Brady) keeps a protégé with her, Carlo (Mischa Auer), whose main talent is eating and imitating a gorilla. Cornelia hasn’t forgotten her humiliation at Godfrey’s hands and seems determined to exact her pound of flesh. Mr. Bullock (Eugene Pallette) appears sane but totally overwhelmed by his out of control family. Irene decides to take Godfrey on as her own protégé in the face of family disapproval. While the maid, Molly (Jean Dixon), offers a running commentary on the entire clan.

During a society tea party, we learn a bit more about Godfrey’s mysterious background when guest Tommy Gray (Alan Mowbray) recognizes him. A later encounter between the two fills in the information that Godfrey is actually a member of the Boston blue blood Parke family. After a romance goes bad, he indulges his self pity and disappears, ending up in the NYC dump. It’s here that he discovers the real down and out people of the world who can’t whinge about fate as they’re too busy trying to stay one step ahead of total destitution. It’s their positive attitude and determination to survive that bring Godfrey around to the point where Irene finds him.

It’s pretty obvious early on that Irene feels she’s in love with Godfrey, much to his dismay. But it takes a while for him to acknowledge his feelings have changed towards her. It isn’t until he puts her in the shower (you just have to see it) that he unwittingly reveals that she’s finally gotten to him. From there on, it’s a fairly quick capitulation for him.

Godfrey: Why can’t you let me alone?
Irene: Because you’re my responsibility and someone has to take care of you.
Godfrey: I can take care of myself.
Irene: You can’t look me in the eye and say that. You love me and you know it. You know, there’s no sense in struggling against a thing when it’s got you. It’s got you and that’s all there is to it – it’s got you!

While “My Man Godfrey” is one of the definitive screwball comedies, it’s also a commentary on the Great Depression of the 1930s. And it’s this grounding of the film that makes it special. It’s not just rich people acting like fools and being lampooned for it but also a glimpse of how many people in the country were actually living or at risk of living if they were unfortunately enough to lose their jobs.

This is one of Carole Lombard’s best films and the camera loves her. She literally appears to shine while onscreen. We can laugh at her over dramatic antics as she attempts to catch Godfrey’s eye because she’s so transparent, yet so earnest, in her attentions. Hollywood truly lost a great actress when she died so young.

William Powell is perfect for Godfrey. He plays the straight man to Lombard’s ditzy Irene and we can follow his changes in attitude and feelings towards her until he’s truly gotten. He’s the one in almost total control of everyone throughout the story except for Irene. With her, he’s almost always either befuddled or bedazzled but in any case, he’s always the gentleman.

The sets and costumes are fabulous, displaying the glamour of bias cut satin gowns and modernity of the Art Deco style. The script is funny and relies on character development rather than pratfall after pratfall. It has the classic elements of the genre – misunderstandings, mistaken identities, witty dialogue, a mismatched couple, the rich seen as idle and the female of the pair controlling the final marriage.

When looking for a screwball comedy to enjoy, there are many from which to choose from the “golden age” of the genre. But “My Man Godfrey” has to rank among the best and is well worth seeking out, even (almost) 75 years after its release. Though it didn’t win any of the six Oscars for which it was nominated, its place on the National Film Registry is well deserved and it’s one of my favorites.

~Jayne

Related Posts:

• Friday Film Review: The Swan
• Friday Film Review: Latter Days
• Friday Film Review: Dear Frankie
• Friday Film Review: Shaun of the Dead
• Friday Film Review: Rachel and the Stranger
• Friday Film Review: Say Anything
• Friday Film Review: Outlander
• Friday Film Review: Saving Face
• Friday Film Review: How to Steal a Million
• Friday Film Review: My Best Friend’s Wedding

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Dear Author earns a small referral fee if you use these links to buy Harlequin books. Click only if you are interested. (Thank you to those who have been clicking and buying!).

• It's a Moonlight Madness sale.

• eBooks Backlist Bookshelf: Get 15% Off Newly Released Backlist eBooks! More eBooks just added this month!

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Dear Readers,

It hasn’t been a good week.

A DVD I bought from an online shop for this week’s review – a Cary Grant/Doris Day film – has a scratch, which rendered it unplayable. I went to a local DVD rental shop next day and rented a Marlene Dietrich/Gary Cooper film. I got home and found there was, unbelievably, a scratch on DVD. I took it back and the rental shop was closed. My mood simply nose-dived. This happened after work on Wednesday.

I was thinking of reviewing one of old favourites (Strictly Ballroom, 10 Things I Hate About You, Down With Love, David & Layla, and The Fifth Element) when Nikki lent me her DVD, Across the Universe (2007), which I hadn’t seen. She urged me to watch it because it’s one of most romantic films she had seen.

After the film ended, I tried to write a review but was having a serious mental block. This happened Thursday evening.

No problem, I thought while keeping growing panic at bay, because I can watch anything and whip up a review easily enough. I pulled out Down With Love and Strictly Ballroom. Although both were hilarious and wonderful to watch again, the mental block was still lodging in my skull. Words just couldn’t flow. I believe it was because my brain was in shock from seeing Across the Universe. I still don’t even know where to begin to write a review.

Right now, at 01:47AM (Friday 08 May) and still no review in sight, I hold Across the Universe director Julie Taymor, scriptwriting duo Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais; their new-found fan (and my potentially former best friend) Nikki and musician Bono’s dodgy mustache responsible.
For this week’s review, I offer two short reviews of films I watched at last minute. Meanwhile, please forgive me for allowing Across the Universe to mess with my now-rocking-slowly-in-a-tiny-corner mind.

Down With Love (2003)
Quotable:
Barabra Novak: ”Down with love? Just eat some chocolate, forget the man, and take control of your own life.”
Genre: Romantic comedy
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Renée Zellweger, Sarah Paulson, David Hyde Pierce

Synopsis: Barbara Novak (Renée Zellweger), the author of a best-selling non-fiction book, Down with Love, that advises women to focus on their careers and treat sex like a man would, having it whenever and wherever the urge strikes. Esteemed and egotistical magazine writer Catcher Block (Ewan McGregor), a notorious playboy and shamelessly chauvinist pig, isn’t convinced. He sets out to prove Barbara isn’t immune to love by pretending to be Zip Martin, a shy, old-fashioned astronaut. Will he succeed?

Pros: it’s a sweetly affectionate tribute to 1960s-era gender-war comedy films starring Doris Day and her rota of leading men including Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, James Garner and James Stewart. The production design was wonderful and so were the costumes. Ewan McGregor, even when at smarmiest, was thoroughly charming, possibly because he clearly was having fun with his roles as Zip and Catch. The classic split-screen technique used in telephone conversation scenes further enhanced the homage feeling which I loved. David Hyde Pierce did well as Catch’s neurotic but witty editor, and as did Sarah Paulson as world-weary Vikki Hillier.Tony Randall’s cameo was perfect given that he co-starred in several Day-Hudson movies. The film was wonderfully kitschy. My husband adores this film so much that he lists it one of top 20 ‘comfort films’, a confession not well known to his friends.

Cons: Some jokes and double entendres seemed too heavy-handed and too blatant, which didn’t seem to fit the 1960s framework. Down With Love was meant to be a satire and an affectionate tribute, but ended up as a weak parody. Zellweger‘s ability to look exactly like a shaven and sun-burnt small animal was fine most times, but when she overacted by pouting, for example, the chipmunk imagery became vividly apparent.

Conclusion: Down With Love was geninuely fun and so crammed with fun inside jokes, but at times, tried too hard. I was still upset about the scratch on the much anticipated Grant/Day DVD and Across the Universe (a.k.a. the love child of Forrest Gump, Yellow Submarine and Willy Wonka), which makes it a possibility I’m taking it out on this film.

Grade: B-

Strictly Ballroom (1992)
Quotable:
Scott: ”You’ve never had a partner. You’ve been dancing with a girl for two years. And now you come to me, who’s been dancing since I was six, and you wanna dance non-Federation, and convince the Pan Pacific judges, with three weeks to train?”
Fran: ”Yeah.”
Genre: Romantic comedy
Cast: Paul Mercurio, Tara Morice, Gia Carides, Bill Hunter, Pat Thomson

Synopsis: Scott Hastings (Paul Mercurio) was born to be a champion ballroom dancer, destined to win the Pan Pacific Championship, but he has a problem: he can’t help but want to dance his own steps. It shocks and upsets the community. Australian-born Spaniard Fran (Tara Morice)—a mere dance beginner—seizes a chance and asks if she could be his partner, making his dream come true. Will he take a chance on this clumsy Plain Jane?

Pros: A hysterical take on the small-scale Australian ballroom dance circuit and a lovely take on the ‘ugly duckling’ tale. Although it’s almost a fairy tale, I believed in gradual romantic developments of Scott and Fran’s stormy relationship. It has a wonderfully strong display of family roots in spite of squabbles and insanity. Loved the cover of Cyndi Lauper’s classic ‘80s song, Time After Time, sung by Tara Morice (who plays Fran) and Mark Williams.
Coincidentally, the film also featured a Doris Day song, Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps, which delighted me. Although the entire cast gave their best, my favourite characters were Scott’s highly wound stage mother Shirley (Pat Thomson), toupee-wearing devious Barry Fife (Bill Hunter) and Fran’s short-but-Alpha-as-hell father Rico (Antonio Vargas) who issued this fantastic line: “Paso Doble? You dance the Paso Doble? Show me! Show me your Paso Doble!”

Cons: Scott and Fran’s highly anticipated unconventional dance didn’t seem that unconventional. To my uneducated dancer’s eye, it seemed a typical Spanish dance. Occasionally Scott was slappable for being so gullible. (I’m still trying to decide if he wore eye liner.) Fran didn’t seem that memorable and was largely underused. If anything, she was a prop to Scott’s journey to be a better man. Although I believed in the romantic development of their relationship and its HEA, I wasn’t that convinced it would last, but I didn’t mind.

Conclusion: Strictly Ballroom was cheesy as hell, but so funny. I have seen this film thrice and it still made me laugh. It’s so Australian as well. In case you didn’t realise, I’m a huge fan of Australian cinema, television and fiction, thanks to these: Gallipoli, The Year My Voice Broke, Phar Lap, Picnic at the Hanging Rock and TV mini-series including Return to Eden, Return to Snowy River and The Thorn Birds). Frankly, I prefer Strictly Ballroom to the classic ’80s film, Dirty Dancing.
Grade: B+

Be good, be bad & be safe,
Jaili

Related Posts:

• Friday Film Review: Shaun of the Dead
• Friday Film Review: My Best Friend’s Wedding
• Friday Film Review: The Swan
• Friday Film Review: Latter Days
• REVIEW: Memoirs of a Hoyden by Joan Smith
• Friday Film Review: Dear Frankie
• Friday Film Review: Rachel and the Stranger
• REVIEW: Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen
• Friday Film Review: Say Anything
• Friday Film Review: Outlander

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Dear Author earns a small referral fee if you use these links to buy Harlequin books. Click only if you are interested. (Thank you to those who have been clicking and buying!).

• It's a Moonlight Madness sale.

• eBooks Backlist Bookshelf: Get 15% Off Newly Released Backlist eBooks! More eBooks just added this month!

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh