Hollywood Romantic Comedy: States of the Union, 1934-65

Kathrina Glitre,
Hollywood Romantic Comedy: States of the Union, 1934-65.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.
ISBN: 0 7190 7079 1
US$27.95 (pb)
199pp
(Review copy supplied by Manchester University Press)

The happy ending of the Hollywood romantic comedy genre can be unstable and contradictory according to Kathrina Glitre’s insightful study of the couple in her book, Hollywood Romantic Comedy: States of the Union, 1934-65. Glitre challenges normative assumptions of the genre by taking a close textual look at what lies beneath the union of the couple. Moreover, she finds that the representation of the couple changes over time and that these changes are contextually based. Glitre’s study encompasses three different major cycles in the years 1934-65. These consist of the 30s’ screwball comedy and the theme of marriage, the 40s’ career woman comedy and the theme of equality and finally, the 50s’ sex comedy and the theme of desire.

These themes are shown to be problematic, especially when taking historical ideological and cultural aspects into account. Glitre looks extratextually as well as textually and finds that old models can be reconfigured as either reaffirming traditional values or saying something different. In 30s America, Glitre finds that there was a crisis in marriage and that attitudes were changing; patriarchal ‘Victorian’ marriage was seen to be outmoded and no fun. In the screwball, the attitude of the relationship was on having fun, “with the couple eschewing responsibilities to behave like children (in screwball comedy, ‘babies’ are leopards and dogs)” (49). It is a kind of fun, she argues, that can revitalise and replace the old model with something different. In other examples this fun of the “companionate marriage” (the couple without family responsibilities), becomes conflated with conventional marriage: “Marriage is marriage once again. The same, not different” (87).

This discovery of change and sameness continues as a major argument throughout the book. It makes for complex insights into the heterosexual couple; each cycle produces different versions of the couple. The structures, Glitre argues, remain stable, such as mistaken identities, gender inversion and happy endings; and yet, “the functions of these structures have differed dramatically” (37). In the 40s’ career woman comedy, for example, power is a major theme: “The balance of power is redressed, but the binary structure of power is not altered” (133 Glitre’s emphasis). In the sex comedies of the 50s the theme has changed once again: the theme is now a connection between sex and money. These comedies seem to have trouble in reuniting the couple. They still have to have the inevitable resolution; nevertheless, it is argued, the resolution is less reassuring than those of the earlier screwball.

Glitre’s contradictory and complex findings challenge conservative theory on the subject and contribute to her aim of rethinking the genre. Unlike David Bordwell, she finds that the happy ending in romantic comedy may be far from convincing and that it can destabilize the final union in such codas to The Palm Beach Story (USA 1942) and Pillow Talk (USA 1959) (16). She mentions many critics who continue to see the union of the couple in screwball comedy as conservative or, what she refers to, as a “remorseless attitude to a ‘beautiful marriage” (44). Her analyses are often biting and offer the reader little shocks now and then. For Glitre, “Marriage is never a ‘beautiful thing’ in screwball comedy; it is always a problem” (42). She brings our attention to Libeled Lady (USA 1936). In that film, marriage is referred to as a “death sentence” (66).

The research material and theoretical underpinnings of the book are wide ranging. The analyses of the couple are not limited to gender theory. Social and psychological theory are drawn upon as is a vast amount of comedy theory: the major theorists of romantic comedy, such as Brian Henderson, Stanley Cavell and Steve Neale and many others, are employed and commented upon in the spirit of academic debate. The theoretical sources are diverse: they include Germaine Greer, Margaret Mead and André Bazin. Other research includes biographical material and magazines, such as Life and Playboy, all of which provide valuable information on star personas.

Glitre’s focus is on stars and select films from each of the cycles. This focus is not simply an on-screen matter. There is shown to be a cross-over between portrayal on-screen and influences off-screen. The contradictions and paradoxes between on-screen and off-screen events add to complex readings of the couple. In the screwball cycle, it is mainly Myrna Loy and William Powell who provide “a valuable site for investigating the popular media’s articulation of love and marriage in the thirties” (65). In the career woman cycle, the focus is Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. It is Hepburn’s being “tamed” by the strong man on screen that affects her power off-screen in paradoxical ways (115). Doris Day and Rock Hudson are the focus of the sex comedy cycle. They are shown to have off-screen personas that influence the sex comedy theme of consumption: for example, their appearance in toothpaste advertisements directly links them with consumerism. The themes of masquerade and identity in this cycle interact with Day and Hudson’s off-screen/on-screen life and this can offer alternative readings.

One of the enjoyable aspects of this book is its methodology of close textual analysis. This interpretive approach means that Glitre does not neglect formal elements such as costume, colour, camera angles, motifs and lighting: all of which provide ideological insights. In the career woman comedy, fashion is used “to reaffirm traditional notions of femininity” (100). In the sex comedy, the glossy colours are linked to bad taste and consumerism. Day’s wearing of pastel colours, in Pillow Talk, associates her with an innocence that contrasts with the hero’s girlfriends. The key motif of the telephone, in this film, is seen to highlight the relationship between consumerism and communication, or more likely miscommunication.

Along with this appreciation of visual elements are biting little quotes from the films. Glitre does not neglect the importance of dialogue; this makes the book feel alive and accentuates the arguments. This piece of dialogue reinforces an argument on passion and possession. It is from After the Thin Man (USA 1936). Characters, Nick and Nora, are on a train approaching San Francisco. Nora complains about how a woman is to retain mystery after three days in a small compartment.

NICK: Darling, you don’t need mystery – you’ve got something much better, something more alluring.
NORA: What?
NICK: Me.
NORA: You! [she gently shoves him, and they kiss] (83).

This book could be particularly valuable for either a specific course on film comedy or a more general course on film analysis. Any section of the three parts could be taken individually as a reading for a particular period on Hollywood romantic comedy. The sex comedy cycle, in particular, offers potential for film studies; an era that, as Glitre reveals, has had relatively little work done on it (138). Additionally, this cycle’s ability to satirize consumerism could be taken further. As a whole, this study is both challenging and encompassing; it gives appreciation to the nuances of sameness and difference that occur in popular Hollywood film for over a period of three decades.

June Werrett,
Australia.

Created on: Sunday, 17 June 2007 | Last Updated: 21-June-07

About the Author

June Werrett

About the Author


June Werrett

June Werrett has recently completed her PhD on "Satire and the cinema: tensions and tendencies in the films of Robert Altman and Blake Edwards" at La Trobe University Melbourne. She has also contributed essays and articles to Screening the past, Senses of cinema and The film journal.View all posts by June Werrett →