Le chevalier de Bacchus

Nineteen-fifty can't have been an accommodating year for a drama with a `progressive' axe to grind, so writer/director Norman Krasna opted for stealth: He wrapped it in a simple-minded screwball plot. Alas, the comedy takes an offensive, loutish turn while the social commentary ends up trivialized, an afterthought.

Van Johnson, valedictorian of his law school class, interns at a white-shoe firm but hides an awkward secret. In France during the war, a bombing raid on a monastery almost caused him to drown in Napoleon brandy. Ever since, he has zero tolerance for booze, in a way that's different (but not entirely so) from abnormal drinkers who sometimes refer to their `allergy' to alcohol; even a whiff sets him off into sustaining conversations with floor lamps and sheep dogs, like another inebriate of that year, Elwood P. Dowd. But pains are taken to stress that he's not `an alcoholic.' Luckily Elizabeth Taylor, daughter of the firm's head, rescues him from embarrassment and sets out to `cure' him.

In the Scotch-and-martini days of post-war drinking, maybe audiences swallowed the fallacy that Johnson's aversion to spirits was a crippling obstacle to his happiness and success; at one juncture he even laments, `Why couldn't I just have been shot in the war?' (The unthinkable is never proposed – that, like millions of others, with and without problems, he simply abstain.)

Then, about halfway through, the movie suddenly springs its `serious' theme. Johnson is lied to about an incident of anti-Asian discrimination in which his firm is involved (this seems courageous until it dawns that a Jim Crow incident could never have been used). Everything comes to a head at a self-congratulatory banquet where the partners – with the connivance of their wives – become merry old pranksters, spiking Johnson's soup in hopes that he'll discredit himself. But, Taylor at his side, Johnson surmounts his disability and blows a clarion call for truth, justice and the American way.

Appealing performances by Johnson, Taylor, Leon Ames, Gene Lockhart and many others help the movie go down rather smoothly. But then The Big Hangover lives up to its title: afterwards, It's foolish, unpleasant and regrettable.

'The Big Hangover' did intrigue me. The premise sounded very silly but it seemed oddly interesting and comedy and seriousness together has been done well on film a number of times. Love classic film too, but the biggest drawer was the cast, full of performers that are generally watchable. Elizabeth Taylor especially at her best was great.

Not much to add to what has been said very well by the other commentators, but 'The Big Hangover' took its potentially silly premise and executes it in an even sillier and at times utterly bizarre fashion. It is not a terrible film and has merits, but it mostly left me cold despite on paper liking and admiring what it was trying to do and say. It just didn't come together and came over as strange and not in a particularly good way.

Its best asset is the cast. Van Johnson excels in a difficult role, the subdued quality to his acting fitting the character well, while Taylor charms and looks lovely in one of her earliest adult character roles, exuding a good deal of warmth. All the supporting cast fare well, but the standout performance came from Leon Ames, who is amusing and sincere with the highlight moment of the film.

Visually it looks good, shot with a lot of effort and care. The music fits nicely and is pleasant enough in its own right. There are some amusing moments, thanks to some expert comic timing from the cast, and also moments of charm. Ames' speech at the end strikes a chord and is very memorable, by far the highlight of the writing.

However, 'The Big Hangover' didn't for me come together as a mix of comedy and seriousness and both on their own are patchy in how they come across. The comedy has too many moments where it is far too silly and contrived and the seriousness veers on too preachy. The low point was the dinner party scene, as a scene it was misplaced and the humour was distasteful. The racism subplot was well intended but suffered from having the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The direction is hardly inept but somewhat uninspired and with not much distinction.

From a story perspective, any worries of it being silly does come true sadly and in a way that's very contrived and try too hard. It's also rather disjointed in trying to balance the comedy and seriousness and having too many instances of the shifts in tone being too abrupt and jarring, creating the bizarreness factor and the sense that the film wasn't completely sure what it wanted to be. The script could have done with more sharpness and focus and while the film is not dull as such there is not an awful lot that engages properly, there are moments but one wants a film consistent all the way through.

Overall, well cast and has some good moments but a very odd film. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This 1950 film was a sleeper at the time and is now considered a classic. Starring Van Johnson [at his peak] and Elizabeth Taylor [at her early MGM grown up best] it tells the tale of a young man with allergies to alcohol and the boss's daughter who crusades to help him overcome his problems. The supporting cast is one of the finest MGM group of veterans ever presented in one film along with a talking shaggy dog [at least Van can hear him].

Percy Warham [notable English actor] and Fay Holden [Judges Hardy's wife] play the parents of Miss Taylor. Edgar Buchanan [that gravel voiced actor from PETTICOAT JUNCTION] outstanding in his role, and Selena Royale play aunt and uncle to Van. Leon Ames [of MEET ME IN ST LOUIS] and Rosemary DeCamp [from TV's LOVE THAT BOB] play a couple struggling to survive in the field of law [she's his wife] with Philip Ahn as a victim of racial malpractice and trick legal maneuverings.

Miss Taylor never looked lovelier in her Edith Head gowns and Van is just plain charming. They both underplay their roles and give very believable performances. Directed and written by Norman Krasna [playwright of KIND LADY, DEAR RUTH, SUNDAY IN NEW YORK] this is well written and directed.

I had the privilege of working with Mr. Buchanan years ago at the Pasadena Playhouse in SEND ME NO FLOWERS. He was wonderful to work with and to know. Having started out as a dentist then turned actor, he had such wonderful funny stories to tell us all.

Van Johnson portrays a young World War II veteran who, upon joining a prominent law firm, attempts to avoid scandal stemming from his allergy to alcohol. He forms an alliance with the daughter of the firm's leader, played by Elizabeth Taylor, and their romance is light hearted and moderated with realism. Ensemble playing from the talented cast is top-drawer throughout, with excellent timing ever in evidence. A shadowy sub-plot dealing with racial prejudice (victims: Chinese) is not overdone and is necessary for developing the film's principal theme: the inherent value of performing public service. Playwright Norman Krasna, who wrote, produced and directed this understated comedic drama, keeps matters moving briskly, while allowing scenes to develop properly by emphasizing the sharp dialogue, some of which is startling with its insight. There is good acting aplenty, by the mentioned leads as well as by Leon Ames and Edgar Buchanan; but the honors must go to the veteran English stage performer, Percy Waram, whose delivery is perfection.

Mary Belney (Elizabeth Taylor) is the daughter of top lawyer John Belney (Percy Waram). David Muldon (Van Johnson) is a top law student being recruited by Belney's firm. He's hiding the fact that he's highly allergic to alcohol. Mary notices his strange behavior after barely a sip. He tells her about the incident during the war. He tries to acclimatize to alcohol by taking sips at home which results in him hallucinating and talking to his dog. Amateur psychiatrist Mary tries to treat him.

This is an oddball convoluted premise. They should go all-out with a silly Dr. Dolittle character. He should have full conversations with the animals. There is potential to do something truly outrageous and memorable. Instead, it goes for the least interesting and boring path. Mary is actually trying to cure him and he's not that funny as a drunk. There isn't much chemistry more than a semi-professional basis and a singing one. None of it is that funny.