El pícaro seductor

It's been so many years since I've seen this, but I remember watching it as a teenager and thinking -- these are grownups here. *I'm* old enough to know what's going on. And this isn't funny. It reminds me of Matt Groening's Paradox:

* The French are funny.

* Sex is funny.

* Comedies are funny.

Yet, NO FRENCH SEX COMEDY IS FUNNY. Replace "French" with "Jack Lemmon", and, had you stumbled onto this film as your first and only exposure to that otherwise great actor, you might be tempted to banish Lemmon from your living room forever.

I've been catching up on a few of these early sixties semi-sex comedies, while in Covid essential isolation. I'm starting to fall in love with Carol Lynley though sadly, she died about a year ago. Jack Lemmon is always funny and interesting, Edie Adams is forever appealing and Paul Lynde, as the frustrated repressed wannabe letch is amusing to watch.

Yes, I was entertained throughout, yes it was relatively original and yes, I recommend it. However, it does go on for a bit too long without veering direction and there's never a moment when you don't know where it's going to end up. It was, after all, 1963, when the Hays code was starting to be lifted but wasn't quite there yet. Young people in the country were preparing for the sexual revolution but they weren't quite there yet, either. By 1967, the year of Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate and the year after Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, the dynamic between this couple would have been entirely different. And by 1974, the film could have gone in a wide assortment of directions. In 1963, again at the time of the almost sex comedy, there was really only one way this film could go. Watching it get there was entertaining but again, it needed a few more turns and twists to justify the length.

Norman Fell's landlord character from The Graduate ended up as the landlord on Three's Company. It might have been interesting to see this landlord replace him.

There are so many competent recaps, I will spare readers of my own. However, suffice it to say that this is a pretty simple movie.

The poor reviews were really fascinating to see before I watched the movie, so naturally, I felt even more intrigued. I will admit that this is not Oscar-worthy material in any way. It's a fluffy movie that had earnest attempts at humor and levity. It isn't going to make anyone see life differently, *unless*: you are able to open your mind a little.

The underlying message of the movie is initially "it's wrong to live together romantically unless you're married" (typical mid-century mindset). The secondary theme is "misunderstanding". The love interest is misled both intentionally and unintentionally, which results in the eventual winning of her heart.

But, the final message that I took from this movie is the one that was eloquently stated by Aunt Irene, who states that "love is created", and doesn't fall off a tree. Even when it seems that way, your relationship is not going to be butterflies and flowers forever, no matter how in-love you begin. It's about truly caring for the other, and trying to offer them grace and understanding.

This was at the very end of the movie, and it inspired me to actually like the movie enough to save it on my DVR!

The biggest downfalls of this movie, aside from the many you've read already, are the fact that it's boring when there is a lack of dialogue and only Jack Lemmon making goofy faces; the portions with the meddling groundskeeper and his wife were also like watching a sitcom, nothing special or unique. The most interesting non-plot feature to me was the incredible set, full of both real and fake objects. It was just so colorful, starting with the opening theme song.

The most impressive moment of all: when the celebrity kitty (Orangey) was holding himself up with front paws on a brick wall, while drinking a saucer of milk. Incredibly adorable and worth seeing!

I don't even think this plot served as anything but farce even back in 1963. It is still a lot of fun. Carol Lynley is very funny in a rare comedic role and Dean Jones is excellent as well. Immogene Coca and Paul Lynde are at their comic best in supporting roles.

Carol Lynley was breathtakingly beautiful.

I'm sure that the reason Jack Lemmon was cast in the screen version of Under the Yum Yum Tree was the resemblance of his character of the landlord Hogan here with the part that got him his first Oscar, Ensign Frank Pulver in Mister Roberts. Superficially there is a resemblance.

But the womanizing frat boy gone to sea in Mister Roberts is behaving under acceptable standards. It's kind of expected that men act out their sexual fantasies being deprived of it when on sea duty. Those stories about sailors on shore leave aren't an exaggeration.

In Under the Yum Yum Tree it's as though Frank Pulver was left an inheritance of an apartment building which is obviously strategically located near a co-ed campus. What was acceptable behavior for Lemmon in Mister Roberts is unbelievable in this situation.

Try as he might Lemmon cannot make this character likable. He's a rich guy who never worked a day in his life which apparently is devoted to being a peeping tom in regard to all the beautiful young women he rents to. And he only rents to young women.

When you think about it, it's pretty darn scary. I can't believe one of these girls hasn't called the police on him.

On Broadway the play was a five character thing and only Dean Jones came over from Broadway. Lemmon, Carol Lynley's part, and Edie Adams part were taken by Gig Young, Sandra Church, and Nan Martin. Under the Yum Yum Tree had a respectable run of 173 performances on Broadway.

But if this is what the theater audience saw, how did it run so long?