A Kiss for Corliss

A Kiss for Corliss is a sequel to 1945's Kiss and Tell, but if you missed that one, you won't be lost. There's only one mention to the previous film, a few cast members were even replaced with no explanation, and the main crux of the first one was expected to be conveniently forgotten about by the audience. Still, Kiss and Tell is infinitely better than the sequel, so I recommend you watch that one instead.

Shirley Temple, a senior in high school, is still a troublemaker and enjoys manipulating her on-again, off-again boyfriend Darryl Hickman, who lives next door. Her father, Tom Tully, is a lawyer who's representing David Niven's soon-to-be third ex-wife. Shirley accidentally meets The Niv in her father's office and practically swoons, overwhelmed by his magnetism. Obviously; it is David Niven! In her diary, Shirley writes some incriminating fictitious romantic passages about Niven, hoping her boyfriend will read it and get jealous-but what happens when her parents read it instead?

It's a very hilarious set-up, but unfortunately, it winds up being very silly. Kiss and Tell was adorable and hilarious, but only a few scenes in A Kiss for Corliss were that way. It felt like Shirley had hurt feelings about her poor reviews of her adult acting chops, and the screenwriter wanted to further the downfall of her career. David Niven was hardly in the movie, and while his comic timing is always very good, it was a throwaway part that he easily walked through.

This was Shirley Temple's final film, and when I saw it I could see why. While she had once been the top-grossing actress in Hollywood as a child, by the late 1940s, she wasn't commanding such huge salaries and the projects they gave her were often inferior. "A Kiss for Corliss" is a film that looks like it was designed a kooky sitcom--not the work for an accomplished actress.

As far as "A Kiss for Corliss" goes, it has a mildly interesting pedigree. Temple played the same character a few years earlier in "Kiss and Tell". Two other actresses later played the character on two short- lived television series--and perhaps their being short-lived is because the character was a bit annoying!

In this installment, Corliss is wooed by a creepy old guy (David Niven), though he really is doing this to bother Corliss' father*. Additionally, Corliss has some adventures with her boyfriend (Daryl Hickman) and as a character, she's very broadly written, insufferable, annoying and hard to believe. In fact, it was so bad that I almost expected to hear a laugh track in the film! I found Corliss so over- the-top and difficult to like that I can see exactly why she then walked away from her film career. In addition, how many times could they cast the very youthful looking Temple as a love interest in a May-December romance (such as in "That Hagan Girl" and "The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer"--both films which are actually much better than this Corliss Archer film. Tough to like.

*Although Corliss was once again played by Temple, her family was oddly played by a different cast.

UPDATE: I just saw the original Corliss Archer film, "Kiss and Tell". It was MUCH better than this one and is well worth seeing...and also stars Temple. It's amazing how much better writing influences how much you like or hate a character.

Innocuous comedy with Shirley, looking lovely, appealing as Corliss Archer, a sometimes savvy but often slightly addle-pated teen. She's surrounded by a competent cast, handed some nonsensical situations too work with but doing their best with what's given. David Niven in particular has a meaningless role that is little more than a cameo.

The fact that Shirley was a grown woman in a troubled first marriage with a child didn't deter the film makers from casting her as a high school student and at twenty one she could still pull it off. This cute, featherweight trifle marked the end of her time as a professional actress. After years of holding sway at the top of the world box office polls Shirley had the timidity to grow up and as she did her career slowed and ultimately after this trifling comedy she chose to throw in the towel. Never the strongest dramatic actress she did possess quite a skillful comic touch and had she chosen to continue acting she probably would have been able to sustain her career for several more years. She had already been announced for her next film, Career Girl- which was never made, when she decided not to continue. Initially retiring to raise her young children she eventually re-entered the public sphere in politics, using her fame perhaps more effectively than any other celebrity in positive manner.

The film is nothing that hasn't been done time and again but it does provide a nice farewell to a leading light of the screen.

Plot-- A suburban teen causes a community uproar when she fakes a diary entry suggesting she spent a night with a much older man.

I didn't find the movie as bad as many other reviewers. Maybe it's because I don't hold comedy shtick to the same standard of plausibility as, say, crime drama. To me, the main standard of comedy is whether it's funny or not. This one's only mildly so, certainly not enough to fill out and hour and a half. Still, the madcap has its moments—Bobby Ellis as the officious teen newshound, Temple as a winsome 40's youngster, and Tully when he's blowing only half a gasket. And is Corliss's mom (Holden) really Dracula's Daughter (1936) who scared the pants off me many years ago!

Actually, the movie's a pretty good look at teen mores, circa 1949. I hadn't heard the phrase 'breech of promise' for decades, til this film, (deflowering a maiden on the promise of marriage and then reneging). There's also quite a bit of innuendo swirling around the misspent night—more than I would expect. But then that's half the draw, seeing the virginal Temple flirt with adult themes.

All things considered, it was probably wise for Shirley to exit the business since her movie image was so confining and not likely to change, as this 90-minutes shows. (For example, note how her "memory loss" personality mimics her moppet cuteness.) No, the movie's only memorable for being her last. But then, despite the general mediocrity, it does have its moments.

While parts of this picture are mildly amusing, all in all it is a failure. The storyline is convoluted and occasionally plain weird and the characters (including Corliss Archer, played by Shirley Temple) are off-putting. By 1949, Temple had lost all her pre-adolescent charm and had failed to develop any redeeming qualities that she was able to bring to bear in this film. Everyone, including David Niven in his role as Kenneth Marquis, is horribly overacting (the sole exception is the dog that does a decent job as the family pet). I really cannot imagine what Richard Wallace as director and Howard Dimsdale and F. Hugh Herbert as writers were thinking when they concocted this mess.