POP FILTER

VS

THE CLASSICS of COMEDY

MY MAN GODFREY

         Other than the hilarious poster, nothing about this movie seems like a comedy at first. It takes place during the Depression, which is a weirdly comedy free period, and was made during that SAME Depression, which seems just a little too…depressing.And it’s well documented that nothing was really funny before Mel Brooks. Just look at the Three Stooges. Revisiting a classic is always a little difficult. You have to decide whether to hold it to the same standard as current films, or to fall back on the tired and disappointingly vague rubric of, “good for what it is”.  That phrase is thrown around often, but rarely fully explained. Is the film in question being held up against all other films of its release year? Is it being compared to films in the same genre across the span of cinematic history? Or the same genre in its specific time period? We need to throw away this empty saying, and say what we mean. It’s no longer acceptable to simply put an older film on a pedestal or detract from it based on its age alone. Otherwise, what’s the point of revisiting the classics?

            “My Man Godfrey” (1936) is a film that offers the above challenge. It’d be too easy to say it’s of its time, and good for what it is, but that doesn’t help the uninitiated and feels like a waste of time for the critic. And it would do “My Man Godfrey” a disservice to say so little about it. On the surface, it is very much of its time–a screwball comedy that’s maybe a little less screwy than most of its genre contemporaries. The reason it’s less screwy is what makes “Godfrey” stand out from the others of its ilk. Rather than ignore the circumstances outside of the theater, and give the Depression-era audience an escapist story of unlikely love, the film wraps its plot (derelict with a secret past is hired as wealthy family’s butler and becomes love interest for the younger daughter) around the consequences and loss of the economic downturn (but keeping the story of unlikely love). Godfrey (William Powell) as the derelict in question is world-weary but not broken, striving to see the best in the out-of-touch family that hires him. His initial interactions with the Bullocks show him to be bitter with the upper class, and quick to write them off with biting sarcasm. This goes away once he’s shown kindness, and his growth as a person, and the growth of his fondness for his employers are both well done and handled in an incredibly natural manner.

            That’s not to say the film is flawless, even if it was nominated for 6 Academy Awards. Apart from Godfrey, the other characters remain caricatures for most of the film, although the patriarch of the Bullock family (played by the bellowing and gruff character actor Eugene Pallette) shows signs of being three-dimensional at times. Angelica Bullock (Alice Brady) as the lady of the household is a shrill and vapid single note, which is all she needs to be. Together with her protégé Carlo (Mischa Auer), she represents how disconnected the upper tiers of society were. Godfrey’s self-declared nemesis, Cornelia Bullock (Gail Patrick), delights in the misery of those around her, all but rubbing her hands together and cackling when misfortune befalls anyone, even her own family. Her scheming is seemingly meant to highlight the gross lack of empathy the wealthy had at the time, but without an emotional anchor, the character becomes a cartoon. This would be acceptable if the film didn’t demand more from Cornelia. When she finally gets her comeuppance and repents her selfish ways, it feels rushed and unearned rather than a window into what Godfrey went through before the start of the film.

           The most disappointing part of the film has to be Godfrey’s relationship with the younger daughter, Irene Bullock (Carol Lombard). If we were looking for a lineage of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, Irene Bullock is an early prototype, with a heavy emphasis on manic. She’s flighty, emotional and impetuous but more open and giving to the poor (at least to Godfrey) then her kin. The movie does a poor job explaining Irene’s reasoning for her kindness, other than to piss of her sister. While Godfrey and Cornelia show emotional development, Irene remains pretty much the same by the end of the film which makes the romantic arc illogical. Shared friendship makes sense, but anything more than that is…well, silly.  Godfrey’s shown to be a character who has learned much in his fall and rise in status, becoming a humble and hardworking man. Irene stays a child emotionally. The third act of the film, where the loose ends are tied together, doesn’t show nearly as much care as the first two-thirds. The casual pace is gone, as if the filmmakers realized they had to wrap a week early, and the natural character interactions are exchanged for an ending that’s expected. Those aren’t issues of the time, but issues many films deal with, unfortunately often within the romantic comedy genre. Even with those issues, “My Man Godfrey” isn’t good for what it is, it’s good. Period.-MG