The Birds and the Bees

Birds and the Bees beats the Lady Eve for the simple reason that Henry Fonda isn't funny. The man can't do comedy to save his life. George Gobel is a hoot. Viewers would do well to stop comparing the two movies and accept it on its own terms. The scene between Gobel and Niven where they discuss a subject then clap their hands over each others mouths before the other can reveal anything is classic. David Niven was never funnier. Gobel wrote the book on playing bumbling ineptness, something Fonda couldn't approach. For me, it was Fonda who was miscast in the original movie. Anyway, give it a view and don't try comparing it to anything. You'll have a good time with it.

Sometimes it's difficult to analyze what is wrong with a film. It's been said that casting is 90% of a film. Consider The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. George Gobel doesn't really act the part, the just plays the part. That's one thing wrong with the film. He's basically doing a TV skit where acting is not the primary ingredient, but personality it. Niven however is great in a dual role (actually a single role in two) in one of his more nuanced performances. Fred Clark was the second best Harry Morton on The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, second only to Larry Keaton, but he doesn't do much here.

What makes this film worth watching nevertheless is the indomitable and comparable Mitzi Gaynor, who is always worth the price of admission. The woman was simply stunning, though it's odd why she never became a (to sound like Ed Sullivan) a really really big star. She herself admitted this much in an interview. She never had a star image. I can't imagine someone going to see a Mitzi Gaynor film the way they would an Ava Gardner or Grace Kelly film.

But Gaynor is a standout in this film in both roles as herself and as pretending to be someone other than herself. She alone kept me watching the whole film. The first part of the film was especially dull and went nowhere so it took great effort to continue, though the pace picked up around the time of the snake scene.

Like I said earlier, it's difficult to "doctor" a film. I didn't find the script all that well written, though Sturges' name is on it since it was the template of this version. I always find comparisons with an original futile. One accepts a film on its own terms. No point in comparing Gobel with Fonda, for example. Especially since Gobel was not even an actor while Fonda was one of our most accomplished actors. As for Stanwyck, I never liked her for some reason and I could never understand her femme fatale status in movies. So Mitzi Gaylor wins the contest easily.

The problem comes down to pace. The film should have been directed in a Hawksian manner, with a much faster pace, quicker timing; instead the scenes never seem to come alive.

Finally Harry Warrens two songs are superb, especially the title song. Somehow I get the feeling that is one of those films that will look better on a second viewing when one doesn't expect that much.

Although folks these days sometimes complain about Hollywood's love of remakes, remaking films is certainly not a new thing. In fact, in the 1930s, films were sometimes remake as few as 2-4 years after the initial movie! In many of these cases, we're talking about B-movies and obscure productions...but occasionally they remake big films...films that were just great originally and had no reason to be remade at all.

A great example of a film that was originally great but got remade anyway is "The Lady Eve". Preston Sturgis wrote and directed it and the movie starred Barbara Stanwyck, Henry Fonda and Charles Coburn...and it was a classic in every possible way. Yet, oddly, someone thought it needed a remake...which they got to 15 year later.

In pretty much every way, the remake is inferior. While Mitzi Gaynor was fine, she wasn't exactly Barbara Stanwyck. But much worse....instead of a nice-guy actor like Henry Fonda, someone thought that bumbling, nerdy George Gobel would be great in the lead...something that simply defies common sense. How nerdy is George? Well, he's an ichthyologist (he studies snakes) and seems more like Harry Langdon than Henry Fonda! He's just all wrong...especially since the film finds Gaynor's character falling in love with him for no clear reason. Even worse is casting David Niven in the supporting role. While he was a wonderful actor and great in leading roles, here he simply isn't at all in the same league as Charles Coburn...not even close.

The bottom line is that "The Birds and the Bees" is harmless entertainment...but hardly any sane people would consider it a classic. "The Lady Eve", on the other hand, is a magical film that you simply must see.

The Birds and the Bees is a remake of The Lady Eve, Preston Sturge's screwball comedy starring Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. It's incredibly similar to the original, so much so that I struggle to understand why they bothered remaking it at all. Audiences who liked the original wouldn't want to mess with perfection, and audiences who didn't like it wouldn't want to give it another chance. I belong to the latter category, and the only reason I sat through this movie is because I love David Niven so much.

David Niven and Mitzi Gaynor are a father-daughter con-team who usually swindle their victims out of money through cheating at cards. Their next target is the bumbling, fumbling fool, George Gobel. But what happens when Mitzi starts to fall in love with him? A more important question is, perhaps, what is the world coming to when David Niven gets third billing in a Mitzi Gaynor movie?

I detested the original; it's an absolute insult to Barbara Stanwyck's talent that it's one of her most famous films. Mitzi adds nothing to the role in the remake. Half the time she's trying to imitate Marilyn Monroe, and the other half she's trying to act like a teenaged Shirley Temple. Gobel gives his best Tommy Smothers impression-or Tommy Smothers got his inspiration from Gobel. I never thought I'd long for Henry Fonda's wooden delivery and bored, slightly frustrated attitude, but Gobel drove me to it. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with him, but I suppose the movies are full of suspensions of disbelief. There's really no reason to watch this remake. Not even if you love David Niven.

This film begins with a young man by the name of "George Hamilton II" (George Gobel) having just completed a 3-year expedition in the Belgian Congo in search of an extremely rare snake. Extremely pleased upon acquiring one he immediately boards a passenger liner enroute back home. The problem is that George just happens to be the son of an extremely famous millionaire and as soon as he sets foot on the ship every single female on board becomes extremely interested in him. Yet, in spite of everything, none of them are able to make much of an impression due to the fact that he is very shy and reserved. That changes, however, when a gold-digger by the name of "Jean Harris" (Mitzi Gaynor) and her con-man father "Colonel Patrick Henry Harris" (David Niven) enters the picture with every intention of taking him for every penny he has. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this was a cute 50's musical-comedy which, in my opinion, benefited more from the comedy than the musical numbers. Likewise, the presence of Mitzi Gaynor certainly didn't hurt the scenery in any way either. Be that as it may, while certainly not a great comedy by any means, it had its moments and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.