Finie la comédie

James Stewart and Rosalind Russell both got loaned out from MGM to Warner Brothers for their one and only screen teaming in No Time For Comedy. This play by S.N. Behrman ran for 185 performances on Broadway during the 1938 season and starred Katherine Cornell.

It also starred Laurence Olivier which leads me to believe the stage version has GOT to be a whole lot different than what we are seeing. Usually James Stewart and Laurence Olivier were never up for the same parts so their must have been a real big rewrite to make this part playable for James Stewart.

Imagine George Bailey if for amusement in Bedford Falls he wrote plays and you've got the character of Gaylord Estabrook who Stewart plays in No Time For Comedy. The film opens with the play about to open out of town and being produced by Clarence Kolb. Kolb has second thoughts though when he meets country rube Stewart from some small town in Minnesota and backs out of the production. But star Rosalind Russell has faith in the play and she pulls together the money to have it produced. Of course she falls for Stewart and they're married.

I don't know about you, but I sure can't see the future Lord Olivier playing the part as Stewart presents it.

The rest of the film is about Russell's and Stewart's marriage and the trials they're put through. Another married couple, Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, take an interest in each of them. Ruggles does well in a very unusual role for him, a sophisticated banker with pretensions to superiority.

No Time For Comedy is decidedly a second level entry in the credits of both the leads. Fans of Stewart and Russell should like it though.

This is a fascinating picture for Stewart fans. Made after "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and in the same year as "The Philadelphia Story," "No Time" adds an interesting pre-war wrinkle to Stewart's on screen persona. At a time when he was most associated with the "aw-shucks" stereotype of the All-American naif, his Gaylord Esterbrook must have come as a shock to movie-going audiences. Gaylord begins as another one of Stewart's lovable rubes, but by picture's end he's become a cynical sophisticate - and Stewart's handling of the transformation is seamless. He's surprisingly good at playing the gruff curmudgeon and a man on the verge of an extra-marital affair - another atypical Stewart-like development. Likewise, the film itself mirrors Gaylord's personal and artistic transformation, beginning as a typically bubbly romantic comedy but turning bitingly (yet still amusingly) sour by the second act. After a series of comeuppances, Gaylord comes up against his limitations and the final scene -- a confession of humility delivered as a monologue to a seemingly non-existent audience -- is truly moving in the tradition of some of Stewart's finest moments. Lovely.

Rosalind Russell and James Stewart are husband and wife in "No Time for Comedy," a 1940 film also starring Charles Ruggles, Genevieve Tobin, Louise Beavers and Allyn Joslyn. It's based on the Broadway hit that starred Katharine Cornell and Laurence Olivier in one of his early lead roles in the U.S. This was the play, according to legend, that David O. Selznick arranged for Olivier to star in so he would be separated from Vivien Leigh while she was doing "Gone with the Wind." Russell is the glamorous stage star Linda Paige who is starring in a drawing room comedy by one Gaylord Esterbrook (Stewart). He's actually from the sticks, and the play is not without its problems. When the production loses its backer, Paige steps in and saves the show. Bumpkin Esterbrook becomes a lauded playwright and marries Paige. He writes comedies with starring roles for her. One day he meets Mandy Swift, a socialite who likes to, shall we say, take young men under her wing and mold them. She convinces Gaylord that he needs to write some serious drama. Since he's already doing some serious drinking, it stands to reason one should follow the other.

Not having seen the original play, it's hard to say whether the film matches up to the original. At the time of the film, Spain was involved in a civil war, and all of Europe threatened by the Nazis; war was imminent. The play is about a playwright who is agonized by his success in the genre of sophisticated comedies when the world is such a serious place. It's also about several years into a marriage when the bloom has fallen off the rose.

The film "No Time for Comedy" is an uneasy mix of drama and comedy. Stewart, who normally plays a likable character, plays a country boy spoiled by success. He turns to drink and another woman, making him much less likable. Yet the audience is set up from the beginning to think he's going to be a nice guy. Russell, of course, plays the stage actress (which she was) beautifully. As Gaylord's suffering wife, she is dignified and sophisticated and you can see her broken heart beneath the veneer. Louise Beavers is fabulous as the maid who is not only an equal in the household but acts on stage as well.

Part of the problem with "No Time for Comedy" is that nowadays, we know the importance of comedy in times of tragedy. In fact, it's always time for comedy, never more than when there's a dark pall over the world. Despite good performances, the movie seems dated today, as I suspect would the play.

Too bad about the awkward shift. That first part shows Stewart at his charming down-home best. He's an aspiring playwright from the Minnesota sticks intent on mounting his unlikely play on Broadway. His play is trying to ape New York sophistication, but because of his rural background, the play comes across as comedic satire which the audiences surprisingly love. So Gay's (Stewart) reputation is made which he follows up with several more successful comedies. Meanwhile, he marries sensible lead actress Linda (Russell), who's drawn to his innocent manner. Their prosperous future now seems assured until he suffers writer's block and the marriage cracks open.

Stewart shines in this first part, clearly in his natural element. The movie's problem is Gay's sudden personality shift from down-home charming to churlish alcoholic. At the same time, the movie's mood and substance also alter and in unpleasant ways. I guess maid Clementine's (Beavers) snappy remarks are supposed to carry the comedic aspect, but unfortunately they're more caustic than funny. Then too, the plot becomes pretty implausible as Gay hooks up with ditzy Amanda (Tobin), and we're supposed to believe that their lengthy relationship never gets intimate. But then if it did, we wouldn't be as accepting of the movie's upshot.

On the other hand, the acting is good, except maybe for Tobin, but the real problem is with script and direction and the sudden rupture into mismatched parts these entail. The basic idea of a naïve rural lad trying to adjust to urban sophistication remains a workable one. But it needs a smoother more plausible treatment, especially with the transition, than it gets here. Sorry to say that, all in all, the 90-minutes amounts to a waste of outstanding movie performers.

Successful comic playwright Jimmy Stewart decides that the times he is living in call for political drama instead of laughs. His stage star wife disagrees and must win him back from the clutches of the pretentious matron who has him in her thrall. Though one would think that the tall, lanky duo of Stewart and Rosalind Russell would be perfect together, they disappoint. They manage some charm and chemistry in the early parts of the film, but both surrender to stridency later on, and this movie has none of the fast pace or glossy sheen a sophisticated comedy set in Manhattan should have.

What is interesting here is the cultural mirror of the times. The amusing portrait of a cynical Manhattan is still recognizable, and the thesis that in bad times there is nothing more important than making people laugh is the same one Preston Sturges explored in his overrated SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS a year or so later. Though this film doesn't mix comedy and message drama as well as Sturges did, however imperfectly, the penultimate scene here is intriguing. Russell is prepared to marry the droll plutocrat whose wife has stolen Stewart from her, but he lets loose with a string of invective that probably accurately reflected the 'America First' Republicanism of the time. Russell decides that she'd rather be with a man who hates the fact that the free world was being taken over by fascists than by a man who sees all dictators with cynical detachment.

This film is heavy and crude where it should be light, and the implied sexual sophistication of the plot is not directed or played with the right tone at all. But this misfire will still manage to be of interest to some.