Grade: D
Synopsis: While trying to secure a rare bone and a one-million dollar grant for his museum, a paleontologist (Cary Grant) finds himself mixed up with an heiress (Katharine Hepburn) and her pet leopard, Baby.
Despite its critical darling status today, Bringing Up Baby was such a commercial flop upon its release in 1938 that studio RKO bought out Katherine Hepburn’s contract (almost ending her career in the process) and fired director Howard Hawks from his next production Gunga Din (1939).
And it’s easy to see why. This is a “screwball” comedy where all the characters behave ridiculously. Hepburn’s character is completely self-absorbed and absolutely unlikable, while Grant’s character is a stuffy pushover who refuses to stand up for himself. There’s no straight man for the audience to identify with, thus reducing the film to an exercise in patience as a series of unlikable characters get into farcical situations.
Granted, the physical comedy is well done, and Hawks keeps things rolling at a breakneck speed, but the film rests on characters you don’t care about, don’t want to spend time with, and ultimately don’t like. No amount of gags can overcome that.
Bottom Line: If you’re big on “screwball” comedies, Bringing Up Baby might be right up your alley, but others would do well follow the crowds and critics of 1938 and avoid this one like the plague.
One Response on “Bringing Up Baby (1938)”:
Jump to Review Form | Trackback URI
-
megan said:
Grade: A+
If you agree with the negative critics of the movie then You just don’t and will NEVER GET.IT. They’re worse than the stuffy shirt characters. They have no sense of silly farce and fantasy. It’s not to identify with anyone than to laugh at the situations and incomprehensible shenanigans.
movie excerpt:
Susan -”Your golfball, your car…it there anything in the world that doesn’t belong to you?”, while coopting David’s golfball and car.
David -”Yes, YOU!”The problem with negative critics of this movie, whom I’ve read are that they like the ’straight man’ character take everything literally and in the context of what should normally happen in the real world and the movie doesn’t follow it. They then in turn reject the premise of the movie for that reason alone, when THAT IS the reason for the shock and audience reaction humor towards the actions in the movie. Madcap screwball comedies exist in a MAD reality with presuming and mentally unconnected characters, whose antics and behaviors ARE SUPPOSED to be seen as humorous for the fact no one in the real world would, should or could deal with them or put up with them. We laugh at the chaos and havoc wrought upon/around the main ’serious’ character trying to keep the straightline in the madness till the other mad characters finally get the clue. Great directors like Hawks know how to bring out the finest actor portrayals and seamlessly weave the seemingly disparate story connections together working the best (yes) cliche comedic vaudeville type pratfalls and dialogue to make a the ultimate best of the screwball comedies of that time. People then were obviously overwhelmed with a ton of poor to mediocre and constant onslaught of ’screwballesque’ cartoons, comedy such that ‘Bringing up Baby’ was considered just one more, as Hepburn and Grant were not near to their height in iconic performer/actor recognition by the public. So their fantastic work was poo-pooed back then til time proved their movie work majestically displayed.
