LDThompson-998-811981 So, this is one of the funniest movies ever made in Hollywood. I'd rank this one around 6th or 8th in my "funniest movies ever" list. The scene where Ms. Holliday is keeping time to "Commando Patrol" is one of the funniest/most subtly funny scenes in all of movie history!!

weezeralfalfa Judy Holiday reprises her stage role in the play of the same name, as the kept uneducated mistress(Billie) of wealthy corrupt uncouth junkyard and scrap metal kingpin dealer Harry Brock, who has come to Washington with his lawyer to bribe a congressman or two to talk up some legislation he wants passed that will increase his earnings from foreign supply sources.Judy is an extreme caricature of the stereotypical childlike dumb blond. Her speech is quite distinctive: virtually the same as that of the better remembered Jean Hagen, who played a similar type of character in "Singing in the Rain". I'd swear they must be the same woman! Since the latter film was released a couple years after this one, I have to wonder if Jean's characterization was based upon Judy's performance here? Of course, those who are familiar with "My Fair Lady" will see some similarities between Eliza Doolittle and Judy's Billie. Harry provided Billie with virtually anything she desires, several times declaring that "I love that broad". On the other hand, the chauvinist in him often treats her like dirt and occasionally even slaps her hard across the face. Billie's lack of sophistication and social graces is an embarrassment to Harry in the Washington scene. Apparently, he has kept her in virtual isolation, so why she has not absorbed any social graces. Hence, Harry hires acquaintance reporter Paul Verrall(William Holden) to teach her some rudiments of social graces and other knowledge so that she might receive congressman's wives socially. Paul takes her sightseeing around Washington and explains the significance of some of the historic documents and the men behind them, and gives her books to read. Surprisingly, she gradually warms up to the idea. They kiss at one point, but he declines an invitation to share her bed, on moral grounds. At first, she is hurt, but later recognizes that this is a good trait in a future husband. Later, he asks her to marry him, but she declines, saying she can't believe that he could find her an adequate wife. But, in the end, she changes her mind, while rejecting Harry's sudden demand that she marry him(based on advice by his lawyer, so that she can't legally testify against him).Some of Harry' holdings have been signed over to her to hide the fact that he is a kingpin of an illegal cartel.Judy won the Oscar for her portrayal of Billie. However, we should ask how realistic is her portrayal? Most women who approach her extreme state of ignorance are immigrants, with little command of the English language. However, she doesn't appear to fit that category. I question whether, at a subliminal level, Billie might represent an extreme perception of women in general, being relatively powerless even in 1950. The point then would be that, given an adequate chance, most women could adequately perform in roles traditionally assumed exclusively or nearly so by men. We might also wonder whether it is plausible to expect a supremely well educated intellectual, such as Paul, to marry a woman such as Billie because he feels sorry for her, or thinks he can gradually mold her into his ideal woman. He's made some progress in educating her, but it's not clear how much more he can accomplish with her... Again, we might ask if there is a subliminal intent to apply Billie's extreme case to women in general? At this time, women in general had less formal education than men and were much less likely to have employment outside of the home, save for certain roles. The message would be that women could still be lovable and adequate marriage partners even if they were poorly educated and had limited contacts outside of their home and social groups.

dimplet Are you folks sure this is a good movie? I'm halfway through and it just gets worse and worse, moving slower and slower and slower to the point that I'm afraid it will never end.Comedy? Maybe people actually laughed in the movie theater 60 years ago, but it's mighty quiet here.Hasn't anyone in this movie heard of "subtlety"? Talk about over-acting. Judy Holliday and Broderick Crawford look like they came out of a prequel to Dumb and Dumber. And William Holden is wishy washy, never clearly defining his character or motivation for any of the things he is doing, aside from getting laid by a not especially pretty moll of a gangster, which is a pretty darn stupid thing to do for a supposedly in the know Washington reporter. (This is either a violation of basic journalistic ethics or a deposit on some concrete galoshes.)Neither Holden nor Holliday fit their parts. Put Marilyn Monroe and Kirk Douglas in them and this might sizzle. Monroe knew how to play the dual levels of a smart inner dame and an outer ditsy dame, as seen in Bus Stop. And Douglas wrote the book on cynical reporting in Ace in the Hole. As it is, there is no chemistry between them, zero, and none between Holliday and Crawford, either. Crawford "really loves" Holliday? Why? She is as charming as screeching chalk on a blackboard.So Cukor rehearsed the cast before a live audience to get the timing. That might have had some relevance when this was shown in a theater. But on home video half a century later all this cast produces is puzzled silence.I suppose there was something edgy about taking on political corruption in a more innocent time. Except it had been done, far better, two years before in State of the Union, and earlier by Frank Capra in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Meet John Doe. Whatever shock value there might once have been (were voters every really that naive?) is long gone in today's world of rampant scandals. OK, I'll try to finish it. And I'll try to like it. But I have the feeling it's not going to be easy.Update:OK, I finished it. Spoiler alert:It ends just like you think it is going to end, the plot unfolding with about the excitement of a AAA road map.There's a reason most people have never seen this "classic": It's boring. To be specific, the acting is boring, the plot is boring, the script is boring, the characters are boring and the directing is boring. I don't remember if the music is boring. Was there any music?But who am I to judge? Apparently, some people just love boring movies. After all, there are a lot of boring people in the world.

dougdoepke I expect the movie's serious side took a backseat to Holliday's overpowering comedic performance. Her Billy Dawn is certainly Oscar-worthy in that year's heavy competition. Who can forget the Minnie Mouse voice, the big saucer eyes and sweetly naïve manner. Together, they combine into a career performance in what's a slyly demanding role. But especially, I love that gin game with the exasperated Harry. Billy seems so scatter-brained and he so focused, it's almost like seeing Al Capone get bested by Daffy Duck. What an expert piece of comedic architecture— in my book, it's the movie's and Crawford's best moments.Speaking of Crawford, he's so consistently loud and abusive, his Harry the junk man (how appropriate) amounts to almost a cartoon character in itself. Director Cukor was known as a woman's director, so maybe that's why Crawford goes over the top. But whatever the reason, he's much too much. The overbearing Harry is supposed to be dislikable but not so dislikable that he becomes a caricature. On a slightly different plane, note how the sexual conventions of the time are slyly finessed—the sleeping arrangements, Billy's withholding sex after the gin game, the suspicious hundred dollars her dad refuses, etc. These amount to a more suggestive screenplay than usual for that straitjacketed time. As funny as the movie is, it still adds up to more than just an expert amusement. There's a substantial subtext worth remarking on. For example, the moral of the screenplay is a clear one—no tyranny over people's minds. That lesson, of course, applies to Billy in spades, though she acts it out in highly amusing fashion. As the domineering Harry's silken mistress, she shows a tyrannized, inhibited silence in the film's first part— which is also why she so cleverly annoys Harry during that delicious card game. The ex-show girl may be a well-kept victim (check out her suitcases in the hotel lobby), but she's a victim no less, not only of Harry's abuse, but of her own difficult background, as well. The trouble is she's also a victim of her own assumptions and expectations about herself.Thus, when writer- educator Paul (Holden) arrives on the scene, he arrives as a potential liberator, bringing her both respect and ideas. But he's got to free her not only from Harry, but from her past dependent self, as well. Those tutoring scenes in the nation's capital with its inscribed democratic ideals are well chosen. The ideals, as we learn, apply not only to nations, but to individuals, as well. So when Billy finally recognizes how the two converge, she opens up a new independence of mind and personhood she never realized were waiting there to be freed. And when she finally leaves Harry for Paul, with just a few clothes, she's in effect chosen the 'happy peasant' over the powerful man (Napoleon) and the movie's moral parable is complete. Nonetheless, there are limits to these lessons. For example, the national monument scenes need not be so reverential since democracy itself remains an ideal, not a religion to be worshipped; at the same time, the 'founding fathers', for all their gifts, were only mortal men and not the gods of a religion. Moreover, the happy peasants of the script don't usually take the risks that drive a history of social and economic progress. Harry may not exemplify this worthy type of risk-taking, but there are limits, I believe, to the 'happy peasant' as a paradigm for an entire society. Of course, the comedic side of the movie means these more serious points can't be made too subtle or controversial, otherwise the funny parts would be undermined. But I can't help wondering just for the fun of it about the casting. Suppose that instead of the handsome Holden as Billy's catalyst, an ordinary looking man were there instead. Then I wonder how Billy would respond. Or instead of the bullying Crawford, suppose someone less good at being obnoxious were cast. But, of course, much of the movie's satisfaction comes from seeing this nasty guy and his plush prison get rejected.None of this is meant to take away from the superb comedic side of the movie. But the exceptional appeal of the material (Kanin and Mannheimer) is that it so neatly combines the laughs into food for thought and both of them into a single entertaining package. But above all, the movie remains a superb showcase for one of the best comediennes of that day or this. What a loss that she died so young. Fortunately, the laughs remain.