Divieto d'amore

The real question is how the source material, a play by these screenwriters called "Anniversary Waltz," managed to captivate Broadway audiences for 18 months and tour extensively. (MacDonald Carey and Kitty Carlisle must have helped.) It's a prurient, shrill sex comedy about how a happily married couple with two 1950s-adorable kids endure a domestic crisis involving a) television's entry into their home and b) the revelation to her parents that they enjoyed premarital sex. It's smug and leering, and so's this loud film version, with a rather clueless David Niven and a posturing Mitzi Gaynor, directed by the seldom-reliable David Miller. The stately black-and-white photography (including some sumptuous 1959 NYC locations) helps, as does Carl Reiner in a capable best-friend supporting turn, as does Patty Duke as the daughter. Phyllis Povah and Loring Smith, as the parents, are tedious, as is the rest of the supporting cast, as is a screenplay that seemingly chuckles at how naughty it's being. You get to see Niven smash a bunch of television screens, and Gaynor does attractively croon one song. But it's 1950s sex comedy at its most lascivious and boring, at the same time.

Happy Anniversary which was known as Anniversary Waltz on Broadway had a good 611 performance run on Broadway in 1954-55 season. Authored by Jerome Chodorov who was having blacklist problems in Hollywood it finally made it to the big screen in 1959 probably for that reason. But the delay knocked the props out of the big gag of the play.

David Niven and Mitzi Gaynor after 13 years of marriage and 14 year of kanoodling with two kids to show for it are having some wear and tear on the marriage. A big issue is Niven's old fashioned views on television, he hates it and won't have it in his house.

In 1954 a lot of people still didn't own a set. But by 1959 when I was 12 years old just about every family did. It was the major medium of entertainment and news and the two hadn't quite blended yet. Niven was not funny, in fact he was downright ludicrous.

And heavens to Betsy he actually admits that he and Gaynor were kanoodling even before it became official. That gets a good row going with her parents.

Gaynor got to sing a song in the film while she and Niven were dancing on their anniversary. Musicals were rapidly disappearing and good thing she got a number in here. But Happy Anniversary will not go down as a great David Niven or Mitzi Gaynor film.

Here's another one of those funny movies the whole family can enjoy. You can really relate to this one, because the funny things here really happen in real life. My favorite is Niven's toast at dinner that starts a family argument. I can just see my family reacting to it now. As usual in the fifties, family values are squeaky clean, but that doesn't deter from the plot or the humor, which is the kind Niven fans expect.

David Niven is great as usual. Patty Duke is excellent and funny. Mitzi Gaynor is the perfect Barbie send-up, and as always, perfect for the time. If I could find it on tape, I would buy it, since this is a classic for its time, like "The Importance of Being Earnest" was decades earlier.

David Niven and Mitzi Gaynor, two talented actors, are miscast in this stagy comedy about a married couple whose past catches up to them just before they celebrate their wedding anniversary. The addition of a new to the household television set is the catalyst for a series of not terribly funny mishaps and lots of arguing. The dialogue is trite and stilted, especially coming from the mouths of the child actors, although all concerned sound as though they're reading their lines directly from cue cards. Had the film been shot in colour, it might have livened things up, but as it stands,the black and white photography just adds to the dreary proceedings.Happy Anniversary bubbles like flat champagne.

I have caught some of this this morning because the little girl that was playing in it was the same little girl that played Helen Keller on The Miracle Worker (1962). Looking quite different here, she puts on a cutesy nails-on-a-chalkboard Shirley Temple (if I may say so) voice which sometimes disturbed me about her earlier work. She looks a little like Natalie Wood or Margaret O'Brien. But her acting was pretty charming. None of the actors did an exceptional job, everybody had some forced moments.

The girl in there is obnoxious and precocious like her brother, she fights with her brother and I know that that can be that way with siblings, especially when they get older but they were still precociously insolent. Even to their parents, the children disregard the rules. That may not have been clichéd those days but it just didn't age well.

The movie pretty much only manages a chuckle out of me. The romance was just saccharine. And some of the scenes were forced.