Je retourne chez maman

It's widely known that Judy Holliday was the greatest comic actress of all time, but did you know she was also a subtle and moving tragedienne? This movie begins as a screwball comedy about a sparring couple, and all I'll tell you is, it turns into something quite different -- and it pulls it off. Judy's beautiful playing has much to do with this, as does Cukor's deft direction. Aldo Ray is a revelation: You may not think of him as a leading actor of his generation, but with Cukor's touch, he hits all the notes of tenderness, childishness, and bewilderment written into his character. Husband-and-wife screenwriters Kanin and Gordon supply funny lines, ingenious dream sequences, a "Rashomon"-type narrative, and much hard-earned insight into marital discord. Also, unusual for a Hollywood film from the '50s, the kids come off as real kids, not synthetic little dears or bratty little monsters.

Despite all the high-priced talent, it's a cheap-looking movie, with almost verite glimpses of 1952 New York. And the abrupt shift of tone may be off-putting to some. Me, I appreciated the film for treating adults like adults, and for suggesting that life and marriage are not wrapped up in neat little packages. An offbeat movie, and very rewarding for those willing to accept it on its own terms.

The dizzy title of this film might suggest a screwball comedy, but it's deceptive. Despite claims to the contrary, this is definitely not a screwball comedy. It starts with plenty of jokes and humorous moments, but among other things, the pacing is all wrong. Also, screwballs often involve moneyed folk with big houses and good accents, and these are working-class characters in a small and under-furnished apartment. Knocking a few drinks back is an amusing foible in screwballs: here it usually complicates the lives of the characters. Instead of driving places, they take the bus or feel guilty about spending money on cabs. Screwball couples may have a pet dog or a leopard in tow; how many of them have small children (as here) whose sleep is interrupted by the bitter arguments of their parents? This might even be called anti-screwball.

The unevenness of tone certainly disconcerted me the first time I saw it, and it has clearly worried several of the other people who've commented on the film. Though Judy Holliday is great (as usual), it helps an appreciation of the film if one does not expect a replay of Born Yesterday's raucous laughter or even the gentler-paced humour of Bells Are Ringing.

Scenes of the discordance and trials of married life are played for laughs, but with an increasingly harder edge until the comedy has very nearly been wrung out of the whole thing. Slowly, the humour departs from the story and we're left with a very watchable study of a marriage spiralling into crisis, even if the treatment does become rather soapy at times.

After several viewings of this strange film, I'm still not sure if I've enjoyed the experience, though I constantly feel that I've been watching something significant. I can't give it a score, as I really don't know how to estimate an accurate score. It's worth seeing, even if you don't expect to like it: that's the only way I can summarise it.

This is a real gem of a film. It is a comedy/tragedy, but in such a way as to be able to flow easily from the two formats. Thus the viewer is never fully laughing or crying throughout the film, but at different moments. It works. The film is told in flashback, and each of the remembrances are told in short vignettes. Judy Holliday is wonderful in her role, and the much underrated Aldo Ray is also brilliant, they are a perfect match. The acting by both the leads is terrific and believable, and there is some wonderful location photography of early 1950s New York. A really great film worth seeking out.

The story follows a young couple through courtship, honeymoon, parenthood and breakup.

The movie looks like a worthy experiment that doesn't quite work. The problem—as others point out—lies with the abrupt change of tone in the movie's middle that causes a radical re-adjustment on the viewer's part. To that point, the style is generally charming and light-hearted, appropriate to the couple's courtship and honeymoon period. I love the way each remembers the past the way he or she wants it to be, while the camera in flashback shows quite the opposite. It's pretty funny. This early part also provides Holliday with opportunity to show off her inimitable comedic style.

But then the tone goes deadly serious, befitting, I guess, the tragedy and troubles that enter the Keefers' life, eventually leading to a breakup. Note in this half how much of the staging has the couple in various stages of unglamorous undress while yelling at one another. Clearly, the idea is to show the other non-cute, deglamorized side of marriage that old Hollywood in its preoccupation with escapism didn't often show. In that sense, the movie's a rather daring stab, for its time, at marital reality.

The trouble, however, is that the two halves clash with one another in both style and content, creating the impression of two movies instead of one. I wish director Cukor had tried shaping the second-half material to the entertaining style of the first half. That might have worked, given his legendary level of expertise. But the way things stand, not even Holliday's talent can paper over the mis-match. Also, I noticed that the actress's comic book voice, so well adapted to comedy, becomes shrill and annoying in the heated exchanges with movie husband Ray. From that standpoint, she was wise to stick to laughs in what remained of her tragically short career.

This is not to say the movie's without compensations. It certainly has its funny moments, while actor Ray's boyish appeal looks just right for an engaging average guy. However, the central problem remains, despite the talent and gutsy stab at reality.

From 1952 director George Cukor (A Star is Born/The Philadelphia Story) directs Judy Holliday (who he reunites w/after her Oscar winning turn in his Born Yesterday) & Aldo Ray (in his screen debut) in this drama about a marriage fraying at the edges. Opening up at a divorce hearing at court, a judge takes the feuding couple into an office & there they lay out the genesis of their union & what led up to where they are now. We see their blue collar straits, he works at the post office while she's a stay at home Mom rearing a boy & a girl. She wants to move ahead & yearns for a chance to do so (in one episode she calls into a radio show to answer a question & Ray feeds her the wrong answer) while he seems to be happy at his status quo. Things take a turn when their son dies in a freak accident at a lake which causes all the recriminations & regrets to boil over into constant arguments which culminates when she receives a check from a deceased boss which stirs Ray to think the worst of Holliday figuring she was romantically linked to him. Will the union give up the ghost or save itself in the final moments? Cukor was wise to cast these earthy actors (in the heated throes of argument you can almost hear your neighbors going at it in any big city) dig into these meaty roles (a turning of the tide was on the horizon for the accurate portrayal of real people, working class American accents & all, to be seen on the big screen). Co-written by Ruth Gordon (the some time actress) & Garson Kanin, this yarn set in the boroughs of the Big Apple crackles w/authenticity & heart.