Je retourne chez maman

The story follows a young couple through courtship, honeymoon, parenthood and breakup.

The movie looks like a worthy experiment that doesn't quite work. The problem—as others point out—lies with the abrupt change of tone in the movie's middle that causes a radical re-adjustment on the viewer's part. To that point, the style is generally charming and light-hearted, appropriate to the couple's courtship and honeymoon period. I love the way each remembers the past the way he or she wants it to be, while the camera in flashback shows quite the opposite. It's pretty funny. This early part also provides Holliday with opportunity to show off her inimitable comedic style.

But then the tone goes deadly serious, befitting, I guess, the tragedy and troubles that enter the Keefers' life, eventually leading to a breakup. Note in this half how much of the staging has the couple in various stages of unglamorous undress while yelling at one another. Clearly, the idea is to show the other non-cute, deglamorized side of marriage that old Hollywood in its preoccupation with escapism didn't often show. In that sense, the movie's a rather daring stab, for its time, at marital reality.

The trouble, however, is that the two halves clash with one another in both style and content, creating the impression of two movies instead of one. I wish director Cukor had tried shaping the second-half material to the entertaining style of the first half. That might have worked, given his legendary level of expertise. But the way things stand, not even Holliday's talent can paper over the mis-match. Also, I noticed that the actress's comic book voice, so well adapted to comedy, becomes shrill and annoying in the heated exchanges with movie husband Ray. From that standpoint, she was wise to stick to laughs in what remained of her tragically short career.

This is not to say the movie's without compensations. It certainly has its funny moments, while actor Ray's boyish appeal looks just right for an engaging average guy. However, the central problem remains, despite the talent and gutsy stab at reality.

This film is highly reminiscent of Judy Holliday's other film, PHFFFT! because both films concern a divorcing couple that down deep still love each other dearly. Also, in many ways it is reminiscent of THE WAR OF THE ROSES in that it appears to be a cautionary tale about marital discord, but unlike this Danny DeVito movie, THE MARRYING KIND is more upbeat and doesn't have the same dark sensibilities as WAR OF THE ROSES.

The film begins with a husband and wife in divorce court. Instead of just granting the divorce, the judge brings them both into her chambers to discuss why they want the divorce since it isn't readily apparent. Both Holliday and Aldo Ray (who plays the husband) then begin to recount their marriage through a series of flashbacks. The flashbacks are incredibly well-acted and realistic--like a real honest to goodness family. While most of their ups and downs seem pretty normal, great tragedy strikes later in their marriage (get out the tissues!).

All of this is wonderfully done, but also VERY tough to watch as things turn from bad to much worse. Plus, after a while, the tragedy and pain becomes a little too much and seems to drag on a bit too long. Shortening up the film by about fifteen minutes would have greatly helped the pacing. Despite these problems with the film, though, the film is marvelously realistic and great film-making. In many ways, this is a must-see film for young couples or anyone contemplating divorce, as it gives an unusual perspective and insights you just don't normally see addressed in films.

THE MARRYING KIND gave movie-goers a first glimpse of ALDO RAY and he proves to be every bit a match for the comic talent and dramatic abilities of JUDY HOLLIDAY. The two of them are a sheer pleasure to watch, totally good chemistry and always believable as a husband and wife on the verge of divorce.

The story is told in a series of well-staged vignettes in flashback as they recount the facts of their troublesome marriage to a divorce court judge (MADGE KENNEDY), who ends up believing that the two of them still love each other and can be taken off the docket for the next day's hearing.

The ups and downs of the marriage are mostly due to the financial strain and the macho behavior of a man who has the need to be the breadwinner but feels he can't support his wife and children the way he'd like to on his post office salary. Ray is excellent at suggesting the moods of a man who misunderstands many a situation because he can't see beyond the money angle. A very revealing scene at a butcher shop where the butcher talks common sense about the realities of life, is a fine piece of writing and beautifully played.

Both Holliday and Ray shine in what is almost a two-character film, especially in the second half--and their arguments have the ring of truth in them, with money and temperament being the strain that seems to be the root cause of their problems.

A touching film, serious at times but basically a romantic comedy directed with great skill by George Cukor (who said he could only direct women?). Ray does a masterful job in his breakthrough film.

Summing up: Highly recommended. Clever screenplay by Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin.

It's widely known that Judy Holliday was the greatest comic actress of all time, but did you know she was also a subtle and moving tragedienne? This movie begins as a screwball comedy about a sparring couple, and all I'll tell you is, it turns into something quite different -- and it pulls it off. Judy's beautiful playing has much to do with this, as does Cukor's deft direction. Aldo Ray is a revelation: You may not think of him as a leading actor of his generation, but with Cukor's touch, he hits all the notes of tenderness, childishness, and bewilderment written into his character. Husband-and-wife screenwriters Kanin and Gordon supply funny lines, ingenious dream sequences, a "Rashomon"-type narrative, and much hard-earned insight into marital discord. Also, unusual for a Hollywood film from the '50s, the kids come off as real kids, not synthetic little dears or bratty little monsters.

Despite all the high-priced talent, it's a cheap-looking movie, with almost verite glimpses of 1952 New York. And the abrupt shift of tone may be off-putting to some. Me, I appreciated the film for treating adults like adults, and for suggesting that life and marriage are not wrapped up in neat little packages. An offbeat movie, and very rewarding for those willing to accept it on its own terms.

The dizzy title of this film might suggest a screwball comedy, but it's deceptive. Despite claims to the contrary, this is definitely not a screwball comedy. It starts with plenty of jokes and humorous moments, but among other things, the pacing is all wrong. Also, screwballs often involve moneyed folk with big houses and good accents, and these are working-class characters in a small and under-furnished apartment. Knocking a few drinks back is an amusing foible in screwballs: here it usually complicates the lives of the characters. Instead of driving places, they take the bus or feel guilty about spending money on cabs. Screwball couples may have a pet dog or a leopard in tow; how many of them have small children (as here) whose sleep is interrupted by the bitter arguments of their parents? This might even be called anti-screwball.

The unevenness of tone certainly disconcerted me the first time I saw it, and it has clearly worried several of the other people who've commented on the film. Though Judy Holliday is great (as usual), it helps an appreciation of the film if one does not expect a replay of Born Yesterday's raucous laughter or even the gentler-paced humour of Bells Are Ringing.

Scenes of the discordance and trials of married life are played for laughs, but with an increasingly harder edge until the comedy has very nearly been wrung out of the whole thing. Slowly, the humour departs from the story and we're left with a very watchable study of a marriage spiralling into crisis, even if the treatment does become rather soapy at times.

After several viewings of this strange film, I'm still not sure if I've enjoyed the experience, though I constantly feel that I've been watching something significant. I can't give it a score, as I really don't know how to estimate an accurate score. It's worth seeing, even if you don't expect to like it: that's the only way I can summarise it.