अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंAfter a rich woman's ex-husband and a tabloid-type reporter turn up just before her planned remarriage, she begins to learn the truth about herself.After a rich woman's ex-husband and a tabloid-type reporter turn up just before her planned remarriage, she begins to learn the truth about herself.After a rich woman's ex-husband and a tabloid-type reporter turn up just before her planned remarriage, she begins to learn the truth about herself.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- 2 ऑस्कर जीते
- 9 जीत और कुल 5 नामांकन
King Baggot
- Wedding Guest
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Hillary Brooke
- Main Line Society Woman
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Veda Buckland
- Elsie
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Lita Chevret
- Manicurist
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Russ Clark
- John
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Sally Cleaves
- Party Guest
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Grant, Hepburn, Stewart. One of my favorite classics! -- I give it 8/10 Hollywood stars!
If this is sophisticated comedy, I'll take the gaucheries of Airplane (1980) any day. Despite the celebrated cast, director, and screenwriter, the movie's not very amusing, unless you think drunks are automatically amusing. In fact, at times the antics are downright annoying, especially the shrill Hepburn character and Stewart's going way over the top as an inebriate reporter.
At best, actress Hepburn is a matter of taste. Here director Cukor gives full reign to her most troublesome habit—sheer staginess. For Tracy (Hepburn), there's no such thing as a simple movement; instead, every inflection is an exaggeration of some sort. Just as bad for the movie, Grant is not allowed his usual superb comedic skills; instead, he gets to look on in a rather wooden manner, a not unreasonable reaction. Unfortunately, this is another example of MGM's Louis Mayer's infatuation with the idle rich and well-housed.
One of the film's few positive notes are the many subtle innuendoes. In fact, the strategic use of such innuendoes as 'intact' made me wonder if the Grant-Hepburn marriage had ever been consummated. Then again, why any man would warm up to such a bitchy "goddess" remains perhaps the movie's biggest conundrum. On the other hand, the supporting cast, particularly Hussey and Weidler, furnish what there is of the movie's meager amusement. Too bad it's only in support.
To me, the movie's exalted reputation is likely the result of Hollywood's promotional arm working overtime. After all, if the production's got this many illustrious names, it's got to be a classic. For a revealing contrast, catch the Grant-Hepburn-Hawks genuinely funny Bringing Up Baby, made only two years earlier. At least, Hawks knew how to edit a scene without letting it drone on and on. Here, Stewart's adaptation of the Barry play may have looked good on paper, but on screen it's quite a different matter, despite all the hoopla.
At best, actress Hepburn is a matter of taste. Here director Cukor gives full reign to her most troublesome habit—sheer staginess. For Tracy (Hepburn), there's no such thing as a simple movement; instead, every inflection is an exaggeration of some sort. Just as bad for the movie, Grant is not allowed his usual superb comedic skills; instead, he gets to look on in a rather wooden manner, a not unreasonable reaction. Unfortunately, this is another example of MGM's Louis Mayer's infatuation with the idle rich and well-housed.
One of the film's few positive notes are the many subtle innuendoes. In fact, the strategic use of such innuendoes as 'intact' made me wonder if the Grant-Hepburn marriage had ever been consummated. Then again, why any man would warm up to such a bitchy "goddess" remains perhaps the movie's biggest conundrum. On the other hand, the supporting cast, particularly Hussey and Weidler, furnish what there is of the movie's meager amusement. Too bad it's only in support.
To me, the movie's exalted reputation is likely the result of Hollywood's promotional arm working overtime. After all, if the production's got this many illustrious names, it's got to be a classic. For a revealing contrast, catch the Grant-Hepburn-Hawks genuinely funny Bringing Up Baby, made only two years earlier. At least, Hawks knew how to edit a scene without letting it drone on and on. Here, Stewart's adaptation of the Barry play may have looked good on paper, but on screen it's quite a different matter, despite all the hoopla.
After Katharine Hepburn was one of a group of stars dictated "box office poison" by the ruling moguls of Hollywood she went east and scored a complete triumph on stage with The Philadelphia Story. But our Kate was the shrewd one, she had the foresight to buy the film rights from author Philip Barry and peddle them to the studio that would guarantee her repeating her stage role and giving her creative control.
On stage she had co-starred with Joseph Cotten, Van Heflin, and Shirley Booth all of whom became movie names later on, but meant nothing to Hollywood in 1940. She had the choice of leading men and cast in their places, Cary Grant, James Stewart and Ruth Hussey.
This was Grant's fourth and final appearance on screen with Hepburn. It's a typical Cary Grant part, witty and urbane, with a touch of the rogue in him. He's Hepburn's ex-husband, still very much in love with his ex-wife, but she's marrying stuffed shirt John Howard.
Reporter James Stewart and photographer Ruth Hussey are covering Hepburn's wedding for Spy Magazine, the National Enquirer of the day. Through a little judicious blackmail they're invited to this premier society wedding, but both feel out of place and used.
After The Philadelphia Story, Katharine Hepburn was a movie name the rest of her long life. Even with an occasional clinker no one ever questioned her about being box office poison.
James Stewart won the Best Actor Oscar in probably the most romantic he was ever on the screen. A lot felt it was a consolation Oscar for not winning it for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in 1939. Stewart himself proclaimed to all who'd listen that he voted for good friend Henry Fonda in the Academy Sweepstakes for The Grapes of Wrath. I've always felt that when Stewart talked about those hearth fires banked down low to Hepburn, he was really talking about himself. He's a cynical fellow at first and his romantic side comes as a surprise to him more than even the audience.
The Philadelphia Story has become such a classic that even the musical remake High Society doesn't try to copy it, it just presents a softer musical alternative. But I'd kind of liked to have seen Hepburn do this with her original cast as well. Oscars were in the future for Van Heflin and Shirley Booth and Joseph Cotten the following year made his debut in the biggest film of all.
On stage she had co-starred with Joseph Cotten, Van Heflin, and Shirley Booth all of whom became movie names later on, but meant nothing to Hollywood in 1940. She had the choice of leading men and cast in their places, Cary Grant, James Stewart and Ruth Hussey.
This was Grant's fourth and final appearance on screen with Hepburn. It's a typical Cary Grant part, witty and urbane, with a touch of the rogue in him. He's Hepburn's ex-husband, still very much in love with his ex-wife, but she's marrying stuffed shirt John Howard.
Reporter James Stewart and photographer Ruth Hussey are covering Hepburn's wedding for Spy Magazine, the National Enquirer of the day. Through a little judicious blackmail they're invited to this premier society wedding, but both feel out of place and used.
After The Philadelphia Story, Katharine Hepburn was a movie name the rest of her long life. Even with an occasional clinker no one ever questioned her about being box office poison.
James Stewart won the Best Actor Oscar in probably the most romantic he was ever on the screen. A lot felt it was a consolation Oscar for not winning it for Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in 1939. Stewart himself proclaimed to all who'd listen that he voted for good friend Henry Fonda in the Academy Sweepstakes for The Grapes of Wrath. I've always felt that when Stewart talked about those hearth fires banked down low to Hepburn, he was really talking about himself. He's a cynical fellow at first and his romantic side comes as a surprise to him more than even the audience.
The Philadelphia Story has become such a classic that even the musical remake High Society doesn't try to copy it, it just presents a softer musical alternative. But I'd kind of liked to have seen Hepburn do this with her original cast as well. Oscars were in the future for Van Heflin and Shirley Booth and Joseph Cotten the following year made his debut in the biggest film of all.
My Rating: ***1/2 out of ****.
The Philadelphia Story is one of the earlier Romantic Comedies. It is also one of the best. This film basically has what most romantic comedies today dont have. That would be a well-written script, Great Acting, and actually funny.
The acting is a huge strength in the film. This is called Katharine Hepburn's best role by many, while I admit she is excellent in a number of scenes, I think she tends to overact at times. Cary Grant is great here. Everyone else is Great but I believe James Stewart to be the standout. He is perfect for this role, its a flawless performance, that he deservedly won the Best Actor Oscar for.
The Script has wonderful dialogue thats delivered flawlessly by the actors. Even simple dialogue like "Isn't that awful" was delivered superbly by Katharine Hepburn. George Cukor made this project look like nothing, he made many films which were "womens films" but he does a damn good job here.
If you think Romantic Comedies of today are good, look at The Philadelphia Story and they will pale in comparison. The Philadelphia Story is a very good film and worth remembering, unlike the mediocre to crappy romantic comedies of today. The Philadelphia Story is highly recommended.
The Philadelphia Story is one of the earlier Romantic Comedies. It is also one of the best. This film basically has what most romantic comedies today dont have. That would be a well-written script, Great Acting, and actually funny.
The acting is a huge strength in the film. This is called Katharine Hepburn's best role by many, while I admit she is excellent in a number of scenes, I think she tends to overact at times. Cary Grant is great here. Everyone else is Great but I believe James Stewart to be the standout. He is perfect for this role, its a flawless performance, that he deservedly won the Best Actor Oscar for.
The Script has wonderful dialogue thats delivered flawlessly by the actors. Even simple dialogue like "Isn't that awful" was delivered superbly by Katharine Hepburn. George Cukor made this project look like nothing, he made many films which were "womens films" but he does a damn good job here.
If you think Romantic Comedies of today are good, look at The Philadelphia Story and they will pale in comparison. The Philadelphia Story is a very good film and worth remembering, unlike the mediocre to crappy romantic comedies of today. The Philadelphia Story is highly recommended.
That this brilliant story originated on stage is obvious. The stage requires personas of epic and electric beauty. Philadelphia Story boasts three of the brightest stars that ever burned to occupy these personas, which they do with miraculous luminance.
The play, of course, was written for Hepburn by Phillip Barry, and after over 400 performances on Broadway she cleverly bought the film rights right out from under the noses of Hollywood moguls who fancied themselves smarter than Dear Kate. This came at a time when Hepburn was tops on the list of stars who had been labeled box office poison by producers.
The dynamics between the stars are legendary. Finer actors never lived, and these are the performances of a lifetime for each of them. Stewart is funny, smoldering, passionate and moving and he has moments, many of them, of stunning brilliance in each of those emotions. Grant is his typical stilted and elegant self, funny, gracious, urbane and, yes, beautiful. And then there is Hepburn. She is breathtaking to look at, and she plays your heart strings in a masterful glissando plucking at every emotion as she moves effortlessly across her entire unmatched range.
The supporting cast is worthy of the surplus of talent that surrounds them, and offer a few unforgettable moments of their own. And the presence of George Cukor, the greatest director of women in history, and the best director of Hepburn as well, coaxes every brilliant word of the script to its full potential.
You must not miss this treasure simply because it is from another era. It depicts that era with insight and irreverence that expose it, and the rarified world of old Philadelphia Money (yes, with a capital "M") like few films of its time, or any time, could. Every time I watch this movie, and the frequency would embarrass me if I were honest about it, I love it more.
Watch it. Study it. Assimilate every second of it and your understanding and appreciation of cinema will be enriched for it. And you'll have a great time doing it!
The play, of course, was written for Hepburn by Phillip Barry, and after over 400 performances on Broadway she cleverly bought the film rights right out from under the noses of Hollywood moguls who fancied themselves smarter than Dear Kate. This came at a time when Hepburn was tops on the list of stars who had been labeled box office poison by producers.
The dynamics between the stars are legendary. Finer actors never lived, and these are the performances of a lifetime for each of them. Stewart is funny, smoldering, passionate and moving and he has moments, many of them, of stunning brilliance in each of those emotions. Grant is his typical stilted and elegant self, funny, gracious, urbane and, yes, beautiful. And then there is Hepburn. She is breathtaking to look at, and she plays your heart strings in a masterful glissando plucking at every emotion as she moves effortlessly across her entire unmatched range.
The supporting cast is worthy of the surplus of talent that surrounds them, and offer a few unforgettable moments of their own. And the presence of George Cukor, the greatest director of women in history, and the best director of Hepburn as well, coaxes every brilliant word of the script to its full potential.
You must not miss this treasure simply because it is from another era. It depicts that era with insight and irreverence that expose it, and the rarified world of old Philadelphia Money (yes, with a capital "M") like few films of its time, or any time, could. Every time I watch this movie, and the frequency would embarrass me if I were honest about it, I love it more.
Watch it. Study it. Assimilate every second of it and your understanding and appreciation of cinema will be enriched for it. And you'll have a great time doing it!
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe film was shot in eight weeks, and required very few retakes. During the scene where James Stewart hiccups when drunk, you can see Cary Grant looking down and grinning. Since the hiccup wasn't scripted, Grant was on the verge of breaking out laughing and had to compose himself quickly. Stewart (apparently spontaneously) thought of hiccuping in the drunk scene, without telling Grant. When he began hiccuping, Grant turned to Stewart, saying, "Excuse me." The scene required only one take.
- गूफ़After Dexter reveals Kidd's blackmailing scheme to Tracy, he accidentally calls her Dinah. Correction: Dexter is not calling her Dinah. When he says "Quiet, Dinah" his implied meaning is "Quiet, Dinah will hear you."
- भाव
Tracy Lord: The time to make up your mind about people is never.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनAlso available in a computer colorized version.
- कनेक्शनEdited into Hollywood: The Dream Factory (1972)
- साउंडट्रैकLydia, the Tattooed Lady
(1939) (uncredited)
Lyrics by E.Y. Harburg
Music by Harold Arlen
Performed by Virginia Weidler (vocal and piano)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Pecadora equivocada
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $9,44,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $4,04,524
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $2,58,994
- 18 फ़र॰ 2018
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $4,16,190
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 52 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें