It is intresting to compare this with another William Powell vehicle, "My Man Godfrey", which I see as too slight:
http://www.douban.com/review/1055694/
What is the difference? One word: GUSTO.
The screenplay is much better written. The plot is implausible and trivial, but who cares, since it is the mere excuse to put us in front of a banquet of witticism, naughty banters, and best of all, non sequiturs---incidentally, this movies has the highest frequency of non sequiturs in my recent memory. Such as,
- Gil: Haven't you heard of the Sullivan Act?
- Nora Charles: That's okay, we're married.
- Nora Charles: You asleep?
- Nick Charles: Yes!
- Nora Charles: Good... I want to talk to you.
- Reporter: Say listen, is he working on a case?
- Nora Charles: Yes, he is.
- Reporter: What case?
- Nora Charles: A case of scotch. Pitch in and help him.
- Nora Charles: Waiter, will you serve the nuts? I mean, will you serve the guests the nuts?
While I was typing these lines, I realize they are not so funny on paper. Which leads me to the other strong point of the film: loose-limbed, gracefully funny performance by William Powell, and adequate support from Myrna Loy. It is Powell's delivery of these lines, casual yet not without relish, that makes the film work. For example, if spoken by lesser actors, this thesis on cocktail making would have sounded over-precious (at least to this reviewer):
- Nick Charles: The important thing is the rhythm. Always have rhythm in your shaking. Now a Manhattan you always shake to fox-trot time, a Bronx to two-step time, a dry martini you always shake to waltz time.
But Powell puts it together with such tipsy grace and lightness of touch that we accept it with a hearty laugh. It is rare to see an actor enjoying himself so much on screen, and one cannot help finding his mood infectious. In fact, his sparkling chemistry with Myrna Loy also makes us like her, tremendously, even though one may not recognize her pouting performance as a great one. Unfortunately, Carole Lombard doesn't have this benefit in "Godfrey".
Finally, I think the film's success as a light comedy has to do with the fact that it was shot only in about two weeks! The fast pace of its making prevents it from taking itself seriously and loading with "messages" or humoring the vanity of film stars, or, most important of all, from getting selfconscious, weighted down with deliberations. That's why "Thin Man" sounds so refreshing, so spontaneous, just where "My Man Godfrey" flops.
HD中字
