It's gotta be The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, right? I mean, c'mon - Bracken, Hutton (esp. Hutton), Demarast and Lynn (no, I mean, esp. Demarast and Lynn - you can't not laugh at those attempted kicks to her behind).

Unfaithfully Yours.

While this lacks a guess as to the one picture P.G. deems a-ok in the Sturges filmography I must protest slightly at the characterization "that the performers are like programmed robots, spewing out cookie-cutter bons mots with hardly a trace of naturalistic empathy or self-reflection", whether one finds the film funny or not is a matter of personal taste, and you do maintain a snide rhetorical language here of the digs you potentially perceive from detractors (a trap I see myself walking into), but to say Barbara Stanwyck, in The Lady Eve, for example, lacks empathy or even more so self-reflection, well, that hits me as way off base about the movie. You may not like it, fine, but I think, quite simply, that belies a vast misreading of the film. Stanley Cavell argues for this self-reflection, in a way, in "The LAdy Eve", brilliantly, a film in which Stanwyck's character is ever presently aware of herself and her actions and schemes, now there is an element of being unawares but this is human relationships we are talking about here.

"That the woman is some kind of stand-in for the role of director fits our understanding that the man, the sucker, is a stand-in for the role of the audience. As this surrogate she informs us openly that the attitude the film begins with is one of cynicism or skepticism, earned by brilliance, and that she is fully capable of being thus open and yet tripping us up so that we are brought from our privacy onto her ground, where her control of us will be all but complete." Cavell. Pursuits of Happiness. p. 66

"She has become what the man is, member of his species, the sucker sapiens, the wise fool; she has found what Katherine Hepburn at the end of 'The Philadeplhia Story' calls a human being; she has created herself, turned herself, not without some help, into a woman..." ibid. p. 69

I think the real test is do you find Duck Soup by the Marx Brothers laugh out loud funny.

While I have nothing really to say that is as intellectually stimulating as your blog, I must say this!

WHAT!!!! I believe it's somewhere in the US Constitution that if you are a writer/critic of film, you must, I repeat, must like Preston Sturges. So, in short, you are a criminal of the United States.

But, I must say, I have also broken these film laws, for I don't give a hoot for CASABLANCA.

See you at Guantanamo!

"The writer's number"--He doesn't lack taste, just a sense of humor, so I'll go with the least funny, and say The Great McGinty.

Christmas In July. It's really short.

Hail the Conquering Hero

Does a director who basically only directed ten years really get a “high period?”

Anyway, I assume that this high period is over by ‘45, so The Sin of Harold Diddlebock and Unfaithfully Yours are out.

Sullivan’s Travels is the favorite film of those who don’t get Sturges’ comedy for stupid reasons not intellectually savvy ones, so that’s out.

I refuse to believe that a person could like either The Great McGinty or Hail the Conquering Hero and not like The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, so McGinty and Hero are out.

I have not seen Christmas in July, so it must be out. (I might rue that dismissal as I think the shortness argument does carry weight.)

That leaves The Lady Eve, The Palm Beach Story, or The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek. Morgan’s Creek seems to me the “ultimate” Sturges’ comedy and since you don’t appreciate his comedy to begin with I doubt that’s it. As for the other two, The Lady Eve is a great film and less manic than most of Sturges’work, while The Palm Beach Story, also great, seems a good middle ground between Eve and his more hectic comedies. For me it would come down to a coin flip, but Sturges-hater that you are I suppose the obvious answer is The Great Moment.

To each her/his own.

Based on the same line of thinking as some before me I'd say Christmas in July, the Lady Eve, or Unfaithfully Yours. My guess is the Lady Eve. There's a warmth in the main characters of that story. Coburn, Stanwyck, Fonda, and even Eugene Pallette come out as human beings rather than caricatures. But as I'm only guessing any further rationalization will have to wait.

I'd guess hail the conquering hero.

Lady Eve seems pretty obvious (but I think its fucking hysterical, for many of the same reasons Graham thinks his films are unfunny). I'll go with Palm Beach Story.


"............CECIL!!!!" (c'mon, that shit is gutbusting).

Pat,

Lots of people don't like Preston Sturges.

Now please stop writing. You are not good at it.

I can't believe you all care one way or the other what 3rd tier critic in spandex biker shorts whose principal way of writing is to add a lot of asterisks, phrases like "hoo hah!" followed by maybe a French saying followed by exclamation points and then another exclamatory something or other about having a lot of burrowing to do. Yes I can remember a lot about what Pat g. has written because in a way I guess I think maybe I'm addicted to the awfulness of it. His phoney humility aside - "Like anyone is supposed to care" - why, people, why would you prove him wrong?!?!

If you don't like Preston Sturges there's something seriously wrong with you.

I'm not kidding.

Get help.

an emergency room casualty of our globally warmed ice age--no dislocations or fractures, just a (possible) rotator cuff injury ... but: on to more important things

NP SACKS--congrats for guessing right first ... also for not being taken in by my (all too obvious?) "hide in plain sight" flim-flammery * moral: never play mind games with the pros when all you're holding is a pair of deuces ...

RECKTALL--in other words THE LADY EVE's like a secular variation of PILGRIM'S PROGRESS, with subsumed allegory conferring the extra heft that a straightforward reading can't * unfortunately for this theory the problem's in the playing: maybe these writerly strategies are part of the package, but they're realized mostly in one-dimensional ways--now she's x, now she's y, o the "humanist" ambiguity ... like sylvester in swashbuckler's quandary in the old warners' scarlet p-p-p-pumpernickel cartoon * not to mention the conventionally predictable resolution: you know exactly where stanwyck character's headed the minute you walk in the theater * safety first: an odd accomplice to "brilliance," i think ...

ZS--passed your DUCK SOUP test with flying colors! ... also, on an related note: whenever i hear the word "swordfish" i almost start snickering ...

SOMETHINGOROTHER--but for the ambiguity of "high period" (which i actually did think about a while), your line of reasoning's close to impeccable, also the outcome thereof: THE GREAT MOMENT ... so delightfully deadpan--and to think it never even crossed my mind!

DAVE K--re "lots of people don't like preston sturges": suggest you consult w/STUPID AMERICAN and DAVID E., who at very least seem to live in the same critical world the rest of us also share * though i confess to having forgotten about east timor, baffin island, the sands of the kalahari, and other areas presumably as oblivious to the blandishments of sturges as to film culture generally * but next time i'll try to remember ...

MATT--and i'd NEVER wear spandex ... another stereotype shot to hell

"ZS--passed your DUCK SOUP test with flying colors! ... also, on an related note: whenever i hear the word "swordfish" i almost start snickering ... "

Most excellent. I started my American War Cinema class this semester with the musical number about going to war from Duck Soup. It got about one snicker.

Wow, you really make reading painful. Try writing without your head up your ass.

"the performers are like programmed robots, spewing out cookie-cutter bons mots with hardly a trace of naturalistic empathy or self-reflection"

precisely. that's the only way this kind of banter works. and it's the main reason it's funny when it's in a sturges movie but makes you feel like pulling your hair out when you hear it in the 1st half of "juno," "gilmore girls," buffy," or any other modern pretender.

sturges' characters toss off these perfectly timed and conceived one-liners as if they expect no one to notice them, which makes them infinitely more appealing - and funnier - than the modern equivalents who practically sit back and admire their cleverness as they're delivering them. it's unrealistic dialogue, of course. but it's great in sturges (and other classic screwballs) because the characters act as if it's the most natural thing in the world, even if they're the only ones in on the joke, instead of constantly "reflecting" (smirking) about how clever they are.

if you like buffy, for instance, and genuinely hate sturges (i.e., if you are not simply putting this on for attention), no one should read you again. i'm tempted to say no one should read you again anyways because of how painfully self-conscious your post is.

Dear Pat.

What a maroon.

Sincerely,
Unsympathetic

so your the one who keeps going to Adam Sandler movies

I guess The Lady Eve. Like you, I'm not sure that I "get" Sturges's other classics, but The Lady Eve is a noteworthy exception. It's all about Henry Fonda...

Thank God I'm not the only one who can't stay focused on this sacred cow. I don't get him either and find his work clunky and a prime example of a director bleeding the creativity and naturalness out of decent actors. His scenes are all stale.

Is a translation of the above comment provided in English?

Me thinks, in a round about, 'Brueghelian' sense, that the author would have made a wonderful character in any number of Sturges' films.

DARIUS--only to PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, an eternal "masterpiece"! ...

YOU ARE A CONTRARIAN--in principle i agree with you, that ritual density is part of the comedy package; where we part company is in your considering what sturges's films do as "naturalistic"--quite the opposite, the sense of strain is frantic and obvious * e.g., iosseliani packs it in too, but with none of this knocking you over the head: "see, see, we're capital F FUNNNNNNY!"

but of course UNFAITHFULLY YOURS is the exception: thank god for rex harrison, that disenchanted "tony ... tony" into the tape recorder, etc

You haters are out of your god damn mind. Sullivan's Travels is hilarious, a little dated sure, but his comments on the never ending class structure in our country is great. His movies have a message without beating you over the head with them. How can you not dig his movies? Sturges was a writer and director when directors typically didn't write there own material.

What's with all the fucking asterisks?

I have forced my copy of Sullivan's Travels on to at least a half dozen people. There reaction is always the same: they love it and they can't believe they never heard of it before.

Even in his lesser movies like Unfaithfully Yours or The Palm Beach Story, there are laugh out loud sequences that are better than most anything I've seen in a Hollywood film in years. (The Quail and Ale Club, anyone?) Frankly, life is too short for people who don't "get" Preston Sturgess.

pat, i didn't mean to imply that the result was naturalistic. my point is that while you find the performances robotic, i think it's the only way to deliver these lines. sturges' characters are given fantastic but totally implausible dialogue. his actors just toss it off -- i think it's the right style. stylized acting to fit supremely stylized words. and if you look around at modern attempts, which usually try to deliver similar dialogue "naturalistically" and which you seem to want from sturges, they're painful in the extreme (see, e.g., any sorkin t.v. show).

if you're going to insist on attacking sturges on this point, you must have the same problem with other classics of the age. the same unnaturally sharp dialogue is in other comedies and even noirs of the age (the fast-talking dames, etc of easy parodies today). none of it is delivered naturalistically. 'double indemnity,' for instance, has nothing even approaching a performance with 'naturalistic empathy or self-reflection.' do you hate all these movies?

anyways, i don't think we're as far apart as it seems. i actually agree with you about the excessive mugging in some sturges movies. i think that's a better objection than the lack of "self-reflective" performances.

and even more basically, some are just funnier than others. but i guess i still find enough to enjoy in even weaker ones like "palm beach" or "sullivan's" to make me a sturges fan. the quail and ale club from "palm beach" drives me nuts (definitely qualifies for your knocking-over-the-head status), but how can you not love anything with the weenie king or the opening credits (with freeze frames 30 years before peckinpah and scorsese!)? the action movie in "sullivan's" is another great moment. and even the title 'oh brother, where art thou?' is hilarious in itself.

ok, i've gone on far too long. but i can't leave without adding that "the lady eve" is practically perfect.

CONTRARIAN--obviously "hate"'s too strong a word, one that, aside from establishing the (hyperbolic) adversarial grounds, i haven't actually embraced * so maybe i'd best quote from an earlier post of mine, on sarris's THE AMERICAN CINEMA (1/18), to clarify what's at issue:

"If not for Sarris's insights into, e.g., the work of Preston Sturges, the almost choreographic sensibility you find there, I'd probably still be kvetching about why his films aren't really 'funny.' But who needs literal ha-ha's when there's so much else to get into, in the commedia dell'arte energy and spectacle, what Sarris essentially refers to as the films' 'Brueghelian' congestion. As with Renaissance painting to contemporary eyes, you don't have to buy into the iconography to groove on the formal envelope, of composition and line, of visual orchestration and texture. And to think that, fussbudgeting over a 'yes it's funny'/'no it's not' bottom line, I might never have seen these things at all"

obviously a lot to be thankful for here: it's the "funny" part that gets me going ...

I like peace, but I'm not morbid about it.

I hate you.

This writer is pitiful. His head is indeed up his own ass and eating his own shit. Worst thing I've read today. This dissertation wasn't useful toward my understanding of Preston Sturges in any way. This guy's a bum.

It's not too late, Pat. I'm sure the Skokie Radio Shack will take you back. You may have to work your way up from stockboy to assistant manager again, but that's gotta pay more than this is.

You don't like Sturges? Well, I hate to say it... but the only taste you must have is in your mouth. Then again, you probably thought Casablanca was "cheesy".

Unfaithfully Yours is black enough to be considered "funny" by our cynical era.

I love Sturges, and one of my favorite films of his is The Sin of Harold Diddlebock. It is one of his funniest films, and it was brilliant of him to take an early Lloyd silent and turn it on its head in his movie. Brilliant!!!

While you bemoan the artifice of the ancient comedies, some of us mourn the loss of intelligent writing, drowned out in the morass of puerile comedies where the stupid and the gross are exalted. Bring back wit and true humor and perhaps we will learn to give an honest laugh again.

Comedy is not a definable enough commodity for mere opinion to validate or destroy. I personally loved Niel Simons film " Murder By Death" but I understand that humor is subjective, and that others may not share that opinion. The wonderful thing about film as an art form is the fact that there is a little something for everyone, but as our society slowly declines we aim films more for the lowest common denominator and hope to pick up other people who will tolerate it. Just because you don't like a particular film or film maker, unfortunately for you ego, does not make it or them bad. Once you know that you have this view of a particular style or film maker, it is within your power to change the channel or just not watch it.

Mental Masturbation.

I linked this from IMDB baby!

Come on Pat, please take over for Rosenbaum...the other guy is so vanilla.

READER--o the agony! ... and i'm not kidding--just a paltry few lines typically takes me HOURS (since i write for rhythm, not for sense, then trust to the gods of basic coherence ... too bad it's an 18th-century cadence) * and how to deal with good friend MATT and all the other asterisk haters? ... a fate worse than, well, asterisks!

besides which, i perfectly ADORE vanilla, since reliability's the name of the game and where'd we all be without it? * probably dumping on hapless preston sturges again ...