Assim é que Elas Gostam

Debate over whether a professor should be allowed to read a controversial letter to his class forms the subject for this spirited football vs. academics comedy originally a stage play by Elliot Nugent and James Thurber. The screen version moves briskly but it's all played at a "full steam ahead" kind of tempo popular at Warner Bros. Henry Fonda is excellent as the mild-mannered professor resentful of his wife's ex-boyfriend (a football jock) and Olivia de Havilland is radiant as his supportive wife. Jack Carson is ideally cast as the ex-football player still in love with Fonda's wife and his bombastic approach to comedy serves him well in this role. Joan Leslie is a little too coy as de Havilland's sister (a role played on the stage by Gene Tierney). It passes the time but is little more than a mildly entertaining comedy with too many dull stretches to make it truly satisfying. Fonda and de Havilland later played husband and wife again on Broadway in 'A Gift of Time' (1962). Elliot Nugent's direction is brisk but it still seems rather stagebound. Nugent himself played the role of the professor on Broadway.

The lyrics of Jerome Kern's "Who" resonate throughout this movie as the lead characters battle one another, both rhetorically and physically, for answers to the big question "Who?" Who does Ellen Turner (Olivia de Havilland) really love? Who does Ed Keller (Eugene Palette) like? Who invited Joe Ferguson (Jack Carson), erstwhile beau to Ellen and football hero/legend at Midwestern U.? Who will save Ellen and Tommy from themselves? Who can save Michael Barnes (Herbert Anderson) from "Hot Garters" Gardner (Jean Ames)? Who is Wally Myers (Don DeFoe), the current football hero, really courting? Joe or Patricia (Joan Leslie)? And who is Bartolomeo Vanzetti? and what does he have in common with people like these? Tune in to the song: i.e. "Who stole my heart away?/Who makes me dream all day,/Dreams I know will never come true,/Seems like I'll always be blue./Who makes my happiness?/Who would I answer yes to?/Well, you oughta guess, Who? No one but you." Don't guess.

See the movie. You not only gotta see the movie, but you gotta hear it, too.

On the outside, "The Male Animal" works most of the time as a lightweight comedy starring two heavyweight actors, Henry Fonda and Olivia de Havilland. However, from the inside, 'The Male Animal' is more than just a 'brain vs. brawn' type of film, it is a convoluted mess of love triangles, rival jealousies, and a liberal viewing of the moral ideals that separate liberal America from conservative America. And if that's not enough to chew on, there's also a superfluous sub plot that features a love triangle mirroring the lead love triangle.

This sub plot is one of the weakest parts of the film, perhaps because the supporting parts in it end up being largely inconsequential to the main plot and therefore just become lighter and younger copies of the main characters. Does it really matter that Patricia Stanley (Joan Leslie) finds herself caught between two college crushes, the first being the current football star Wally Meyers (Don DeFore) and the second being a nerdy journalism major named Michael Barnes (Herbert Anderson)? Not really, but I have the feeling it was supposed to.

The strongest attribute from this film comes by the way of the comedic interplay through the leading love triangle between the ex-football player Joe Ferguson (Jack Carson), his old cheerleader flame Ellen Turner (Olivia de Havilland) and her husband Tommy Turner (Henry Fonda). Much of the film centers on the homecoming of Ferguson and the subsequent home wrecking of the Turners. Ferguson's arrival brings out the young romantic dreamer in Ellen and the insecure jealousy in Tommy. Ellen and Tommy keep a smiling facade for Ferguson and school boosters who traipse in and out of the house, but behind closed doors lurk a lot of pent up questions that quickly turn to accusations. This love triangle works well through a good part of the film; however the impending, or rather, the implied and impending divorce arrangement that is understood, or better yet, misunderstood by the lead characters quickly becomes monotonous. One wonders how better this film would have been had it been directed by Preston Sturgess instead of Elliott Nugent. The funniest line in the film centers on the response Tommy gives Ellen when discussing Tommy's irritability at having to entertain house guests. Ellen suggests that Tommy have a soda to calm his nerves, to which Tommy calmly replies, "let's not bring this down to the level of bicarbonate of soda".

If the dizzy love triangles account for the comedy in this film, then it is the threat of a letter being read by Turner to his English Literature class, penned from the hand of a convicted criminal and communist, that makes up the drama of the film. Ed Keller (Eugene Palette), the chairman of the board of trustees at the college mentions to Turner that their college isn't a place for "too many ideas". Keller, although never having read the letter, thinks this type of letter goes against all that he sees as good in America; namely 'Abraham Lincoln', 'right guys, stand up guys', 'pep rallies with bonfires' and of course, 'The big game'.

Turner could always watch from the safety of his porch the yearly mob mentality of a pep rally during homecoming, when all that was at stake was a football game. However, this mob has assembled to burn him at the stake. His job, his marriage, and his safety all hinge upon whether he can make the whipped up mob not only listen, but try to understand the beauty and composition of the letter. Before Turner starts to read from the letter, his wife, in the audience with Joe Ferguson, looks on with pitying eyes. By the time that Turner has finished his letter and calmly walked off stage, she feels she's made a terrible mistake by not standing by her man.

What happens next is a very clean and tidy ending. Everyone in the film is in smiles and Turner finally gets to enjoy a rally away from his porch and his bicarbonate of soda.

Everyone in the cast has their moment to shine. Fonda and Carson get the bulk of what is good. Fonda seems at his best when he's in a film where he is standing up for what is right, whether it be as a juror in '12 Angry Men' or the voice of reason in 'The Ox-Bow Incident'. 'The Male Animal' is no different; his reading of the letter is brilliant. I didn't care too much for his drunken buffoonery that lead up to the end, but the letter reading at the end more than makes up for it. Carson is always a solid second banana. He is outstanding as the ex-footballer and ex-boyfriend to Olivia de Havilland. I always like to see Olivia de Havilland, she's always good, but she seemed just a tad wasted by the end of this film. She was great whenever she would become emotional at the realization of how difficult Fonda was making her decision to run away. She's a terrific actress who is easy on the eyes, but mixing comedy and drama in this film was not her highest moment.

Just like the trick 'Statue of Liberty' play employed by the school to win the big game, you might not appear to have had a ball watching this movie, but it still features a few extra kicks in it, and after all, that could be the small difference in the big game.

8/10. Clark Richards

Henry Fonda is a college professor in danger of losing his job and his wife in "The Male Animal," also starring Olivia de Havilland, Jack Carson, and Joan Leslie.

Fonda plays a happily married intellectual. On the weekend of college homecoming, his wife's former beau (Jack Carson), a jock, shows up, giving rise to the professor's insecurities.

He's having problems in his teaching life as well when an editorial states that he plans to read a letter from Bartolomeo Vanzetti (of Sacco and Vanzetti) in his English composition class. The trustees aren't happy and want him to state that the article is incorrect.

As he is up for a full professorship, his wife hopes he will back down also since three teachers have been fired for being "reds."

This is an odd film with a very timely message about censorship and its dangers that by itself would have made a good movie, especially with wonderful actors like Fonda and de Havilland.

However, the home situation was played for comedy. This film didn't seem to know which it was. If I were to guess, I would say the studio wanted a comedy and the dramatic part was downplayed. It's a shame, because there was nothing special about that part of the film, except that Jack Carson was very good.

The Henry Fonda character discovers that he has to become "the male animal," i.e., one who fiercely protects his home, and not only his home, but his role as a teacher as well.

Today, when "Brokeback Mountain" isn't being shown in all areas, and more censorship is being urged, this is a good movie to see if only to remind us that the this is a war that has been fought for years. Nowadays I wonder if we're winning.

'The Male Animal' is that beast which lives in all men and comes to the surface when he is threatened. This satire about American concepts of manliness was a hit on Broadway but it made a rather sluggish movie in this incarnation.

Henry Fonda is fine as the egghead professor and man of principle who proves that standing up for ones values and for freedom of speech is the manliest act of all. Olivia de Havilland is too matronly in appearance and manner as his wife. Far better is Jack Carson, perfectly cast as the brash ex-football 'hero' who turns out to be timid when the chips are down. As usual, this hearty character actor brought more to the part than the script required.

What strikes you while watching this in 2004 is that the film's message is as fresh and relevant as it was over 60 years ago. A world where athletes are lionized for little reason despite their many shortcomings as men, a world where athletics is given more respect than scholarship, a world where liberal, humanist, democratic values are attacked and constantly threatened with censure -- this is the world we are still living in. This revelation is sobering and suggests that the forces of conservatism have always been too strong in this country, and have been holding us back from all we should be. So while it's a pity this film isn't much, much better than it is, it's still worth a look for the little shocks of recognition it provides.