Liebling, zum Diktat

Old, wonderful movies like these need to be restored and offered on Netflix and Amazon so they are able to be purchased. Roz Russell was a brilliant comedienne and her personality played beautifully against Fred Mac Murray's laid-back, sardonic presence.

This is a gem that needs some loving care. At least show it more on TCM. One of the earliest films to show male-female role reversal, i.e., male secretary vs female executive. It's such a great way to see how the upper middle class and upper, upper classes lived in the early forties. The night life scenes and the music are wonderful. A must see film for Russell fans.

1942's "Take a Letter, Darling" is a fun look at life in the '40s, and no one could play a career woman like Rosalind Russell. Tough, intelligent, sophisticated and glamorous, she fits easily into a man's world. In this film, directed by Mitchell Leisen, A.M. MacGregor (Russell) is the active partner in an advertising firm with Atwood (Robert Benchley), but she has both man and woman trouble. Men make passes and wives are jealous. To get around this, she hires a male secretary, Tom Verney (MacMurray) who in reality is an artist trying to save money to move to Mexico and paint. He takes notes, does research for her and, most importantly, poses as her fiancé at business dinners.

Verney is wary of the job from the beginning and plays along reluctantly. When A.M. learns the often-married Jonathan Caldwell (MacDonald Carey) is looking for a new advertising company for his tobacco company, she also learns he hates women. She maneuvers a meeting but learns that his sister (Constance Moore) has to approve the campaign. Enter Verney - but when the sister turns out to be young, beautiful, and invites Verney to the southern plantation - A.M. finds she's jealous.

Good movie, good fun, terrific cast, if somewhat predictable.

Advertizing Agency Partner Rosalind Russell (A M McGregor) hires painter Fred MacMurray (Tom) as her secretary in this male/female role reversal story that both Russell and MacMurray are very at ease with. MacMurray breezes his way through the film in a very aloof Boris Johnson kind of way, while Russell is excellent in her role.

MacMurray doesn't convince as an artist but it really doesn't matter. Russell is funny as a woman in control who knows that it's a man that she needs for happiness in life. It's not a revelation of a movie but it is easy-going and enjoyable.

Opera Hat or Top Hat? Don't be a flub!

ROSALIND RUSSELL and FRED MacMURRAY have seldom had their flair for light comedy seen to better advantage than in TAKE A LETTER, DARLING in which the battle of the sexes involves Russell's career woman falling in love with her male secretary--really more of a personal assistant here and one she hires to make deals with clients and their wives.

MacMurray comes to resent the position he's placed in and there's some genuine wit and satisfactory situations resulting when Russell uses him to make her various deals. Predictably, she falls in love with him and it takes the whole story for the two to finally meet on common ground after a series of misunderstandings and plot complications involving MACDONALD CAREY and CONSTANCE MOORE as a brother and sister team who are both schemers who can match Russell any day.

It's all very brisk, very '40s style in the way the situations are resolved. ROBERT BENCHLEY has a more subdued role than usual in comic support.

But the chemistry between MacMurray and Russell is what keeps the whole thing bubbling along to a predictable enough conclusion.

MACDONALD CAREY has one of his better roles as "the other man" who has already had four wives and decides Russell should be his fifth.

Summing up: Amusing and well worth your time with a clever script by Claude Binyon.

The title of this comment is not reflective of this movie, a witty and expertly-handled farce; a shiny, energetic bit of bric-a-brac representing a memento of what we'll look back on one day as the high point of American popular entertainment (if not American civilization - once so down-to-earth, and disarmingly unpretentious). Rather, it refers to the sad reality of what the powers that be are allowing to befall the pre-1950 Paramount back catalog, as vital a part of American cultural history as any you'd care to name. Whether it's Sony, or Universal, or Vivendi into whose corporate clutches the rights have now fallen, I've frankly lost track of - it's one of them, though (and maybe all three).

Point blank: these films are not being cared for, let alone properly restored. You see it time and again with vintage Paramount films - if it's a famous title they're sure they can make money on (like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, say, or the ROAD comedies or Sturges classics) the print looks and sounds pristine; but these days - if it's one of the hundreds of less-well-remembered Paramounts - invariably the picture is bleached and indistinct, the sound deteriorated, and the entire experience of watching the film deeply compromised. There's no other word for it than "disgraceful" (particularly as it's been Sony/Universal/Vivendi who've been keeping these films OUT of circulation for decades now, resulting in their less-well-remembered status in the first place!) if for no other reason that it robs us, and future generations, of the joy of REdiscovery that's such a rewarding aspect of watching vintage Hollywood films; of seeing, and appreciating, aspects and nuances that its contemporary audience perhaps missed, or weren't even looking for, the first time around.

I'm possibly making a mountain out of a molehill here, and particularly in TAKE A LETTER's case, as the picture is soft but certainly still watchable, though the crispness and contrast of the original image isn't there. (The the cast-listing after the picture ends, however, is so washed out it's utterly illegible. You can barely make out a single name.) And compared to the unmitigated audio-video horror that is now SWING HIGH, SWING LOW (another Fred MacMurray Paramount comedy, screened by TCM a few weeks ago), TAKE A LETTER is flawless by comparison. But it bothers me no end that seemingly nothing is being done to restore, to save, these movies. Paramount wasn't PRC or Monogram, for God's sake: their roster of pre-1950 features are easily the equal of Warners, MGM....any of the other majors. How is it possible that a billion-dollar entertainment conglomerate, even though it's one unconnected to the making of these pictures, can show such casual contempt for film history? "Lost" films are one thing; this is more like watching them being abandoned. Maybe an old-fashioned write-in campaign is called for.