Quand l'esprit vient aux femmes

Noting that the folks who give out the Razzie Awards put Melanie Griffith up for Worst Actress I have to say in her defense that she certainly is no Judy Holliday. In fact the film is like a summer stock production of the play.

Which ran back in the post war years for four years on Broadway during the post World War 2 years and starred Judy Holliday, Paul Douglas, and Gary Merrill. The original film which came out in 1950 had Judy Holliday winning her Bes Actress Oscar. Broderick Crawford and William Holden played the two male leads.

This 90s remake is updated to suit the times and Harry Brock the self made millionaire could have been modeled on Donald Trump. John Goodman is the same kind of bully Crawford was and Trump is. The kind of man who as Oscar Wilde said knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

His companion/mistress is Griffith a former Las Vegas showgirl who acknowledges she is one ignorant bimbo. But Goodman decides she needs a bit of education to fit in Washington society. So he hires writer Don Johnson to tutor her. She proves a more than apt pupil.

Johnson and Griffith herself discover she has the means to bring Goodman down. Let's say one of the cleverest of Goodman's schemes bites him where the bite marks don't show.

Goodman and Johnson are good replacements for Paul Douglas/Crawford and Gary Merrill/Holden respectively. But Griffith while good seemed to be channeling too much of Judy Holliday in her performance. She missed the chance to make the role her own.

Still I'd see it. Especially since we endured four years of Harry Brock presidency.

If at first you take and forget that this is a remake, it will help for those who remember the original actors and such to get through this. On the other hand, as this is a current movie, (at that time) and sometimes updating a story can be entertaining, fun and necessary. Some stories don't seem to age well, now I'm not at all talking about this movie in that context. But with all said and done, after the movie ended, I had a good time. I really enjoyed it, so did many others, when "Born Yesterday" played in theaters . Don Johnson, as Paul, the reporter was good, no tough-talking bad boy role here. Then there was, the third character, John Goodman. Here is a comedic big-man! He has and brings a whole different ingredient to this story. If it had been another big man, it would have been all together not the same. Now Melanie Griffith, I have always had a 'soft' spot for in my heart for her, in a friendly way. She came in behind Judy Holiday and took on the role of a modern day 'simpleton' wife, who had her routine and therefore was happy as a pig in mud. It won't win any awards, but if you just look at that body of work and give it an honest chance, it comes through, delivering good laughs.

The chemistry and interest among Johnson and Griffith was sustaining and entertaining which if it's lacking, will ruin just about anything that the main story could offer a viewer. Born Yesterday, has a propensity for trying. Sometimes 'trying' is too much and doesn't work and sometimes the movie makers hit a hard-and really good remake and make a new stake in the film remake game. At any rate, this was an enjoyable film that I would recommend to a comedy fan. With John Goodman playing it out and out funny and the bad-guy too, you can't miss. It's tough to beat William Holden, in a dirty-day mature adult affair type story, so this doesn't have the feeling to it that the original has. Even so they are two different films that can be enjoyed. The supporting cast was a nice choice as well as the main personalities. (**)

The casting of crude millionaire Harry Brock is crucial to the success of this film simply because he dominates the story even when he isn't on screen. Choose the wrong actor and the whole thing will collapse because he is the origin of the story's conflict and therefore needs to be strong and bold. Luckily, the producers cast beefy John Goodman in the role and he managed to strike just the right combination of pent-up rage and apple-cheeked smiles. Although he's a Citizen Kane-type monster who slaps his girlfriend around and believes the offer of jewellery or money can soothe all ills, he also displays moments of genuine emotion that makes him quite likable at times. I guess the idea was to show how the nice guy he once was has been devoured by his hunger for money – hardly original, but nicely played by Goodman, anyway.

The story is essentially a wake-up call to the slumbering giant that is the American public masquerading as a romantic comedy. A book called Democracy in America – which was actually written in the 19th Century by a Frenchman named Tocqueville – plays a big part. By studying its concepts, Brock's moll Billy (Melanie Griffith) awakens to the fact that she is being duped by Harry, who represents the forces of rampant capitalism, and rises up against her oppressor. Whether the message is particularly relevant to its target audience is open to question, but perhaps its assumption that it won't really be taken too seriously allows the film to make its symbolism so literal that few will miss the parallels. For example when Ed Devery (Edward Hermann), Brock's right-hand man who clearly feels he has sold his soul ('I died twelve years ago,' he tells Brock after his employer shows concern for striking him in a rage) picks up a copy of the book it signals a reawakening of his conscience which is quickly quashed when Brock snatches it from his hand and throws it to the ground. Others, like the radio presenter, pay lip service to the concept without really understanding it. The way the message is couched in this straightforward simplicity raises the film higher than others of its type.

In a bland, thankless role that goes nowhere, Don Johnson wears horn-rimmed glasses and combs his hair forward to dispel memories of designer-clad cops. Even if he was anything more than a workmanlike actor he would struggle to do anything with the role. Griffith is likable enough, but her rapid transformation from bubble-headed blonde to hair-in-a-bun brain-box is so fast it fairly takes your breath away. One minute she's impatiently searching for something to watch during the dead time between the soaps and Entertainment Tonight and the next she's teaching a group of Senators the American constitution.

The film itself is entertaining enough; it certainly isn't as bad as you'd expect, and it's rating on this site is surprisingly low. But then, I suppose a lot of people watch this because they've seen (and liked) the original, which is a major hurdle for any film to overcome.

Putrid remake of the classic play and film about a scrap metal tycoon (a non stop shouting Goodman) turned real estate mogul who pays a Washington newsman (Johnson) to educate his feisty girlfriend (wretched Griffith). This film proves that some treasures should be kept buried and left alone.

I'm never against remakes. What is there to lose? If the remake is inferior it just reaffirms the rarity of and how difficult it is to produce a true classic. If the remake is superior, then we have a better movie! This movie stands on its own as fair and light entertainment. The performances are right in line with popcorn comedy and will produce a sufficient number of chuckles and laughs.

The problem, of course, is this movie cannot stand on its own. If you remake a classic, you have to make the comparison. This version just doesn't measure up to the 1950 original on any level.

Since many people have not seen the 1950 Born Yesterday, I think this movie will do them just fine. Sooner or later though, if they love movies, they're going to stumble across Judy Holliday's outstanding performance and then this remake may seem a bit weak.

As with most attempts at remaking classics, the 1993 version of Born Yesterday falls far short of the original. It does, however, maintain a charm of its own and it wouldn't hurt to give it a try. However, I certainly, without reservation and whole-heartedly recommend the original as a "must-see"!