Ehegeheimnisse

"Happy Anniversary" is a 'modern' comedy that tries to be edgy. It just forgot one thing...to be funny. So, with several curse words and references to premarital sex, it's not enough to make the film interesting. I think the problem is that it tries too much to be hip and not enough time focusing on fun.

The film finds a happy couple who have been married 13 years, Chris and Alice Walters (David Niven and Mitzi Gaynor). But when they receive the gift of a TV for their anniversary, trouble is brewing. Chris prides himself for not having a TV in the house and he doesn't listen to his family--he just demands they remove it. Then, though the course of the film, they bicker about not just the TV but other things...none of which is all that interesting.

I just found this comedy to be a bit tedious AND I really hated the character of Chris. He was supposed to be a modern and permissive dad but was actually a selfish jerk. Not much fun.

The real question is how the source material, a play by these screenwriters called "Anniversary Waltz," managed to captivate Broadway audiences for 18 months and tour extensively. (MacDonald Carey and Kitty Carlisle must have helped.) It's a prurient, shrill sex comedy about how a happily married couple with two 1950s-adorable kids endure a domestic crisis involving a) television's entry into their home and b) the revelation to her parents that they enjoyed premarital sex. It's smug and leering, and so's this loud film version, with a rather clueless David Niven and a posturing Mitzi Gaynor, directed by the seldom-reliable David Miller. The stately black-and-white photography (including some sumptuous 1959 NYC locations) helps, as does Carl Reiner in a capable best-friend supporting turn, as does Patty Duke as the daughter. Phyllis Povah and Loring Smith, as the parents, are tedious, as is the rest of the supporting cast, as is a screenplay that seemingly chuckles at how naughty it's being. You get to see Niven smash a bunch of television screens, and Gaynor does attractively croon one song. But it's 1950s sex comedy at its most lascivious and boring, at the same time.

As a young girl, my all-time favorite film star was David Niven. I went to as many of his films as I could. Happy Anniversary was a hilariously funny film. Of course, since television became such an American staple, some might not find the humor in it. I call TV the plug-in drug! So, I have always felt this very funny film was a masterpiece.

Mitzi Gaynor and Niven were quite good as a couple celebrating their thirteenth anniversary. I found the children annoying--especially the son. I found the conflict of the film amusing--Niven, after having consumed too much alcohol, lets it be known to Gaynor's parents that he and their daughter had engaged in relations prior to their marriage. This of course scandalizes Gaynor's parents, especially her mother who feels like a fool for having had a deep heart-to-heart conversation with her daughter (presumably about sex) the night before the wedding.

The other conflict in the film is that Gaynor's parents purchase a television set for the family. Niven deems television detrimental to family life and to people's intelligence and does not want one in the house. A running gag is that Niven keeps ruining the television sets. Anyway, the thing I was most surprised about was the amount of language in the film. While I'm used to 1950s films having more colorful words allowed (the word "hell" or "damn" will be heard once or twice in the film), Happy Anniversary seemed to have more of these words than I'm accustomed to in a film that is still technically in the production code era.

I also found the frank discussion of sex very interesting. At the beginning of the film, Niven and Gaynor's characters clearly sneak off to a hotel for a romantic rendezvous, then there's Niven letting the cat out of the bag about he and Gaynor's pre-marital sex, later, their little girl ends up on television to inquire about her parents' pre-marital sex and how that was negatively affecting their relationship.

There seems to be a recurring problem with films that have one foot in the production code era and one in the budding sexual revolution. They can't really figure out what they are about and wind up having neither the courage nor the quaintness of their convictions on either side. This one is mainly saved by Niven's charm and Gaynor's skill.

This kind of innocence and charm has been relegated to the distant past in our overly clever age dominated by blockbusters. We need to stay in touch with it. This flimsy, unpretentious comedy has more substance and structure than many a big budget movie. I am tempted to say "Don't miss it", but television is the only place you can see it. It's not even available on video. Good luck!