A Vida é uma Comédia

The first portion of "No Time for Comedy" is excellent--and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, somewhere around the middle, it was like the characters had head injuries (particularly James Stewart) and began acting weird...along with some new and annoying friends. As a result, the film really lost its momentum and its way.

The film begins with a playwright (Stewart) being called to Broadway to do some re-writes for the play. They are in rehearsals and the play just doesn't quite flow the way they'd hoped. Stewart is not at all like they expected. After all, the play is a smart drawing room comedy featuring the upper crust--and Stewart is some Midwestern yokel who has never even been to the big city or been with the smart set. After some teething problems, however, the play is a success. This part of the film is very charming and seeing him and Rosalind Russell together was a treat.

The next portion of the film really stopped making sense. Now that Stewart and Russell are married, suddenly the sweet guy has turned into a major butt-head--a very selfish one at that. Now he drinks heavily and begins hanging out with the world's most superficial and annoying married woman anyone could imagine (Genevieve Tobin). While I hated the change in Stewart's character (since it seemed so out of character), everything about Tobin was wrong...100% wrong. Her character made no sense at all and was played so broadly you'd wonder how any semi-sane person could fall for this super-annoying....'lady'. Also incongruous is her husband (Charlie Ruggles)--he simply made no sense at all as the annoyed but unbelievably passive rich husband. At this point, the only person who comes off halfway convincing is Russell...but even she occasionally behaves oddly. It was really as if the film had two different writers who didn't even read each other's scripts before combining them.

The overall film really looks like two separate films. The first half I'd score an 8 and the second I'd score a 3. It really would have been improved with a revision...a re-write like Stewart's character was called in to do when the movie began. Not a good film, though it looks nice and has some lovely scenes. The bad just outweighs the good.

By the way, after Stewart behaved abominably through much of the film, why would Russell's character STILL want him?! What sort of screwy message is this projecting at women?!

Rosalind Russell and James Stewart are husband and wife in "No Time for Comedy," a 1940 film also starring Charles Ruggles, Genevieve Tobin, Louise Beavers and Allyn Joslyn.

It's based on the Broadway hit that starred Katharine Cornell and Laurence Olivier in one of his early lead roles in the U. S. This was the play, according to legend, that David O. Selznick arranged for Olivier to star in so he would be separated from Vivien Leigh while she was doing "Gone with the Wind."

Russell is the glamorous stage star Linda Paige who is starring in a drawing room comedy by one Gaylord Esterbrook (Stewart). He's actually from the sticks, and the play is not without its problems.

When the production loses its backer, Paige steps in and saves the show. Bumpkin Esterbrook becomes a lauded playwright and marries Paige. He writes comedies with starring roles for her.

One day he meets Mandy Swift, a socialite who likes to, shall we say, take young men under her wing and mold them. She convinces Gaylord that he needs to write some serious drama. Since he's already doing some serious drinking, it stands to reason one should follow the other.

Not having seen the original play, it's hard to say whether the film matches up to the original. At the time of the film, Spain was involved in a civil war, and all of Europe threatened by the Nazis; war was imminent.

The play is about a playwright who is agonized by his success in the genre of sophisticated comedies when the world is such a serious place. It's also about several years into a marriage when the bloom has fallen off the rose.

The film "No Time for Comedy" is an uneasy mix of drama and comedy. Stewart, who normally plays a likable character, plays a country boy spoiled by success. He turns to drink and another woman, making him much less likable.

Yet the audience is set up from the beginning to think he's going to be a nice guy.

Russell, of course, plays the stage actress (which she was) beautifully. As Gaylord's suffering wife, she is dignified and sophisticated and you can see her broken heart beneath the veneer. Louise Beavers is fabulous as the maid who is not only an equal in the household but acts on stage as well.

Part of the problem with "No Time for Comedy" is that nowadays, we know the importance of comedy in times of tragedy. In fact, it's always time for comedy, never more than when there's a dark pall over the world. Despite good performances, the movie seems dated today, as I suspect would the play.

James Stewart and Rosalind Russell both got loaned out from MGM to Warner Brothers for their one and only screen teaming in No Time For Comedy. This play by S.N. Behrman ran for 185 performances on Broadway during the 1938 season and starred Katherine Cornell.

It also starred Laurence Olivier which leads me to believe the stage version has GOT to be a whole lot different than what we are seeing. Usually James Stewart and Laurence Olivier were never up for the same parts so their must have been a real big rewrite to make this part playable for James Stewart.

Imagine George Bailey if for amusement in Bedford Falls he wrote plays and you've got the character of Gaylord Estabrook who Stewart plays in No Time For Comedy. The film opens with the play about to open out of town and being produced by Clarence Kolb. Kolb has second thoughts though when he meets country rube Stewart from some small town in Minnesota and backs out of the production. But star Rosalind Russell has faith in the play and she pulls together the money to have it produced. Of course she falls for Stewart and they're married.

I don't know about you, but I sure can't see the future Lord Olivier playing the part as Stewart presents it.

The rest of the film is about Russell's and Stewart's marriage and the trials they're put through. Another married couple, Charles Ruggles and Genevieve Tobin, take an interest in each of them. Ruggles does well in a very unusual role for him, a sophisticated banker with pretensions to superiority.

No Time For Comedy is decidedly a second level entry in the credits of both the leads. Fans of Stewart and Russell should like it though.

This is a fascinating picture for Stewart fans. Made after "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and in the same year as "The Philadelphia Story," "No Time" adds an interesting pre-war wrinkle to Stewart's on screen persona. At a time when he was most associated with the "aw-shucks" stereotype of the All-American naif, his Gaylord Esterbrook must have come as a shock to movie-going audiences. Gaylord begins as another one of Stewart's lovable rubes, but by picture's end he's become a cynical sophisticate - and Stewart's handling of the transformation is seamless. He's surprisingly good at playing the gruff curmudgeon and a man on the verge of an extra-marital affair - another atypical Stewart-like development. Likewise, the film itself mirrors Gaylord's personal and artistic transformation, beginning as a typically bubbly romantic comedy but turning bitingly (yet still amusingly) sour by the second act. After a series of comeuppances, Gaylord comes up against his limitations and the final scene -- a confession of humility delivered as a monologue to a seemingly non-existent audience -- is truly moving in the tradition of some of Stewart's finest moments. Lovely.

Successful comedic playwright Gaylord Esterbrook (James Stewart) is happily married to actress Linda Esterbrook (Rosalind Russell). But strange Amanda Swift (Genevieve Tobin) convinces him to write a drama and tries to steal him away from Linda. But she won't give in without a fight...

Comedic drama adapted from a stage play. It's actually pretty funny with many good lines but it just lacks that spark to make it great. It certainly isn't the actors' fault---Russell is beautiful, funny and completely at ease--Stewart comes across as an immature, alcoholic jerk (but that's what he is playing)--Tobin is quite amusing and Charlie Ruggles makes to most of his small role of Amanda's husband. And it's always great to see Louise Beavers even if is in the demeaning black servant role. So--it is good but not great. It just misses the mark. But it always great to see Russell and Stewart so young and full of life. I give it an 8.