Babys auf Bestellung

Tunnel of Love, The (1958)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

"Comedy" about a happy couple (Richard Widmark, Doris Day) who are struggling to have a kid on their own but their attempts at adoption isn't going any better. Things take a turn for the worse when the husband thinks he might have had an affair and got that woman pregnant. This is a very strange film that never seems to know what it wants to do. I've heard that Day and her husband/manager would often try to force their way on pictures but I have no idea if that's what happened here. She pretty much plays a supporting role here but her character is so strange, as is the story and some of the casting, that you can understand why this thing didn't do too well at the box office. A lot of the reviews I read bash the casting of Widmark in a "comedy" when he's best at playing "dark gangsters" and that sort. I think that is far from the truth and I think it's the offbeat casting that actually keeps the film watchable. Widmark is certainly best known for his tough guy roles but I thought he was rather fun here simply because we don't get the chance to see him as a pushover and someone who actually has a lot of fears. The early scene with him coming home exhausted and fearing his wife and her need for sex (for the baby) was very funny and I thought Widmark played it well. Sure, it was a little forced seeing him playing such a weak person but I found it to be funny and charming. Day, on the other hand, appears to be going through the motions as she never really gets going in the picture. She doesn't come off very funny and her character at times, especially at the end, becomes quite annoying. Gia Scala is very good in her role of woman Widmark fears he has pregnant. Gig Young is also very delightful in the role of Widmark's friend who has all the kids and plenty of girlfriends on the side. The screenplay is all over the place but I found it's look at sexuality and moral issues pretty frank for 1958 and maybe this was another reason it didn't go over too well. The film isn't a classic and it's not even a good one but I think fans of Widmark will at least get some smile out of seeing him playing a character like this.

I hadn't seen this film since it was first released, and had forgotten most of its content. I received a copy of it recently as a belated birthday gift (I'm between 30 and death-closer to death!) and, unlike the writer from Washington, I found this film to be a rather adult and mature approach to a sensitive topic, interspersed with moments of gentle and/or imagined calamity. I feel that there is a touch of the "film noir" here. By the way, what's wrong with a "stagy" effort? It works for this ol' English and Dramatic Arts Teacher! I feel that this was a rather good piece of work for Doris at that time, and stands well after all these years. That was one of the good things about Doris; give her a role and it became uniquely hers. I hope she will delight us all and involve herself in some new film work!

Viewers who saw this film in theaters when it opened must have needed sunglasses during the opening credits! While Day sings the corny title tune (augmented by a funny echo effect at an appropriate time) the camera closes in on her and Widmark's faces while driving. Day is bright enough already, but tan Widmark smiles and out comes a huge row of startling white teeth that smear the screen with light! Maybe it's just unusual to see this actor so happy as he's definitely out of his element here. The pair play a couple who are knee-deep in plans to adopt a baby, but don't find it so easy. Eventually, through some dumb plot contrivances, Widmark thinks he has fathered a baby outside his marriage and it causes even more plot contrivances and mayhem. Widmark does the best he can in this new genre for him and Day is always interesting, but they're affected by this subpar material. Young is a breath of amusement as a carousing next door neighbor who already has a few kids and whose wife (Fraser) is continually pregnant. Amusing as he is, his attitudes are not particularly admirable. Fraser clocks a lot of screen time but has little to work with and suffers from inconsistent pregnancy pillows. (She does get to wear one show-stopping gown at a party.) Lovely Scala appears as an adoption agent, but her role is mostly decorative and at times insulting (to her.) Tedium builds and several annoying and unreal situational comedy moments ensue with only a smattering of laughs nestled in. Fortunately, the underused and always welcome Wilson shows up as another adoption agent and puts a tad more life back into the picture. One surprising thing about this movie is the level of language, subject matter and entendre present for its time. A lot of the early dialogue is pretty frank and suggestive for 1958, but these sophisticated traits are undone by leering, unfunny gags and a lot of inane character choices. The whole thing (aside from the credits) is filmed inside on a stage and it shows. Kelly does not display any mastery of the camera (there's no one dancing in front of it to hold our attention this time, Gene), nor does the story hang together in terms of character development. One minute Widmark is lovingly devoted to Day, the next he's off with another woman. Nothing in this film is ever fully proved or discussed, either. It's all a bunch of drawn conclusions. Only people who want to see Widmark in a comedy or see him smile (which he doesn't really do again after the titles roll) and devout fans of Day or Young will want to sit through this.

One of Webster's definitions of humor describes it as being ludicrous or absurdly incongruous. So, people who decry this movie as such might themselves be without a sense of humor. As for claims of miscasting of Richard Widmark, I think that shows how we become so set in our views that we stereotype actors.

I don't ever recall having seen this film in the theater when I was in high school, or on TV in later years. It is part of the Doris Day DVD collection I recently bought. And these 50 plus years later, I found this to be a very entertaining and well-acted movie. The script is a very good general portrayal of the times and how people felt about children, family, fidelity, etc. Gig Young's part might be a rare exception in real life, but his straying character is important for the movie where Widmark's character plays off of him.

Young's Dick Pepper is an inconsiderate, boozing, neighbor with a family that he seems hardly to care about. He has wandering eyes and is very much a sleezy character. Widmark's Augie Poole loves and dotes on his wife. While tolerating his crass neighbor, he feels and shows a sense of guilt and betrayal of Isolde, played by Doris Day. Augie had taken too many pills for his nerves and passed out when he had a dinner date with Estelle Novick, a social worker. He doesn't remember what happened that night, but thinks the worst when the adoption home gives them a baby that very closely resembles him.

I think Widmark was exceptionally good in his role. Like most other reviewers, I probably had a notion of Widmark as a gangster, tough guy or bad guy, with an occasional Army or Navy hero thrown in. But here he gives a great performance - out of his usual character - of any man, and how he might have felt and thought and behaved like in such a situation in the 1950s. I think the consternation, anxiety and angst that Widmark shows at different times makes him so real. The stereotypical actors we might normally think of for this role would not have given it that real human touch. Theirs would have been the light treatment where everyone has a good laugh in the film. This was a masterful job, in my view, of humor with pathos. Only a very good actor could pull that off, and I think Widmark did it very well.

To be fair with moviegoers, I must say that I think I probably would not have enjoyed this film as much when it was made. Again, mostly because of my idea of what Widmark should play. We also had different ideas back then of Doris Day and the roles she should play. And that's probably why this movie didn't do well at the box office.

But today, I'm glad I can enjoy this film as a very good example of acting by the entire cast in a rather sophisticated comedy. The comedy comes mostly from innuendo and misunderstandings among the characters. Although, there are some funny lines spread throughout the film - mostly between August and Dick.

As for the plot - I like to remember that Hollywood puts out fiction even with its most adept efforts for accuracy in biographical and historical films. But for comedy, some of the very best films of all time have been those with the most unlikely plots. About the only thing in this movie that doesn't make sense is its title with accompanying song. But then, that's in the congruity of Hollywood humor. Or did I miss something in that too?

Here are some of the best funny - or poignant lines from this film.

Augie Pool, "If Van Gogh had been married to a woman like you, he'd still have both his ears."

Dick Pepper, "Oh, what a lovely thing. Just to look at her sends the blood coursing through my veins." Augie Poole, "In contrast to the usual route it takes."

Augie Poole, "What's another moose head over the fireplace in your life?"

Augie Poole, "You know, Miss Novick, uh.... It's hard to think of you as a woman of science." Estelle Novick, "I run into that all the time". Augie, "I'll bet."

Alice Pepper, "It wouldn't hurt you to play with your children once in a while." Dick Pepper, "We have nothing in common. They bore me. Being a parent is just feeding the mouth that bites you."

Augie Poole, "Oh, stop patronizing me, you Madison Avenue extrovert."

Alice Pepper, "Just remember, you're the host." Dick Pepper, "Okay, okay. I promise not to enjoy myself."

Alice Pepper, "Boy, if Dick ever waited on me, I'd either have him committed or have him watched."

Augie Poole, "Oh, I, I was never cut out to lead a double life. I can't even have a single life."

Dick Pepper, "Maybe it is best to come clean and tell her everything. Confession is good for the soul." Augie Poole, "Only in the sense that a tweed coat is good for dandruff."

Dick Pepper, "You go to the Bible for inspiration. Let me remind you of something. When Daniel got out of the lion's den, he didn't go back for his hat."

1958 was before Ross Hunter embarked Doris Day on the fabulous career she had in the '60s, in which she would become a top box office draw - in fact, THE box office drawer for years. In "The Tunnel of Love," she plays a sweet, vivacious woman who is desperate to have a baby and can't, so she and her husband, played by Richard Widmark, plan to adopt one. When the adopted baby bears a strong resemblance to Widmark, he becomes sure that the child is the result of an evening he can't remember with the investigative social worker (Gia Scala).

Based on a play, this kind of light, subtly sexual comedy became very popular on the dinner theater circuit in the '60s and '70s, joining the ranks of "Mary, Mary", "The Marriage Go Round," "Boeing Boeing," etc. It is not particularly well directed by Gene Kelly and sports the very strange casting of Richard Widmark as Day's confused husband. I can't agree with the comments here. Though an actor known for playing tough roles and cruel men, he does a credible job here mainly because he knows enough not to play for laughs. He creates a full character, that of a caring if foolish man who adores his wife but screws up occasionally. Gig Young plays the philandering husband next door. He's fine, but the character is very unlikable.

There's not really much to recommend here. I suppose at the time it was considered somewhat suggestive, but it doesn't play well today.