This is an exceptional comedy in that each person of the cast of nearly two dozen adds something to the humor. Thus, the supporting cast does even more to help the main stars deliver a great hilarious movie. Yet, the few reviews to the time of this writing seemed to miss much of the humor because it was dated, out of tune with the present times, or not politically correct. Too bad for them.
"She Wouldn't Say Yes" has a wonderful cast. Rosalind Russell is the over-confident psychiatrist, Dr. Susan Lane, who doesn't need a man in her life, let alone a husband. Charles Winninger is her father, also an M.D., but he would like to have grandchildren someday. Lee Bowman is a well-known syndicated cartoonist, Michael Kent. He's enroute to serve in the post-war Army overseas. Among the supporting cast who contribute much laughter are Harry Davenport as Albert, Percy Kilbride as Judge Whittaker, Adele Jergens as Allura, Sara Haden as Laura Pitts, Mabel Paige as Mrs. Whittaker, and Almira Sessions as Miss Downer.
The plot is a crazy one, and moves from a serious scenario in an Army hospital to a train ride from New York to Chicago, to the medical offices of the two doctors and more. The comedy is good throughout, but one scenario alone, toward the end of the film, makes it worth watching. The marrying judge plot has to be one of the funniest segments ever in a movie. It doesn't ruin it to describe it here, because watching it on film is so funny.
To set it up, Doc Lane (dad) and Kent are in Doc's office meeting with a local judge. They plan to trick Susan into marrying Kent. They need to convince the judge that she's unbalanced. Then they have to convince Susan that the judge is a client who is unbalanced. After Susan's secretary alerts her to something strange going on with her father, Susan goes into his office but Kent hides behind the door. Doc says, "The judge is just crazy about marrying people." And the judge says to Susan, "I wish you'd think about my marrying you." The dialog before, between and after this is hilarious.
Back in her office with Miss Pitts, Susan says, "In all my experience I've never come in contact with a mania like that." After the judge and Kent leave, Susan goes back to her father who then gives her the case. She'll go to the judge's home that night to begin therapy. So, she goes, expecting to treat his mania for marrying people. But the judge has informed his wife and their neighbor, Miss Downer – who will be witnesses, of the pending marriage of this unbalanced woman. Kent is to arrive later, just in time for the wedding. The dialog is some of the most ingenious, hilarious comedy ever written. The judge asks Susan, "Do you know why you're here?" Susan replies, "Yes, do you?" Susan gets the two women aside for a moment and says, "Your husband wanted to marry me this afternoon." Mrs. Whittaker says, "He still does." Miss Downer says, "That's what worries us." There is much, much more.
This is one over the top hilariously funny scenario in a very funny film. It was written and played in the 1940s when it was very funny. And, these decades later it is still very, very funny – and clean. I recommend it to those who have a sense of humor and who want a good laugh.
I don't know why some people think comedy has to be written, lived and acted only in the present milieu? That would make everything from the past as terrible as most of what passes as humor in recent years. Why would some people put today's restrictions on a film to strangle and stifle the genuine humor that it contained when made? A reviewer will refer to films made before "the code," as though that was a hindrance in itself to films. Then that same reviewer will try to impose a modern "code" that would restrict a film even more. Instead, should we not look for the humor as it was expressed and felt in those times past?
Who says the one or two headline stars of a film have to stand out with the best lines all the time? Who says a supporting cast can't steal the scene with occasional bursts of comedic brilliance? Who says that scripts and writers can't spread the humor around as appropriate and for the best laughs? Who says that the customs and mores of a time past can't be funny in the present -- or understood and appreciated as they were originally? Who says that the social customs that guided filmmaking in the past can't still be sources of hilarity and laughter today?
Maybe it's a sign of the times that so many people today can't laugh at themselves and the world around them. Perhaps we need to look more closely at the past when, in seriously tough and dour times, people were able to laugh at their foibles and those of others. And the movie makers were able to give them great fodder for laughter, as in this film, "She Wouldn't Say Yes." I laughed long and hard in several spots in this film. If you didn't on first viewing, watch it again. Turn off the critic and just watch the people and listen to the exchanges.
Look for the funny in a deadpan expression. Look for the hilarity in a seemingly flat response. Look for the humor in all the usual places as well. And look and watch for the laughter that lay hidden and ready to pounce from so many sharp turns or quick changes in scene of a fast and screwy script. This movie is a great howl throughout.
"She Wouldn't Say Yes" has a wonderful cast. Rosalind Russell is the over-confident psychiatrist, Dr. Susan Lane, who doesn't need a man in her life, let alone a husband. Charles Winninger is her father, also an M.D., but he would like to have grandchildren someday. Lee Bowman is a well-known syndicated cartoonist, Michael Kent. He's enroute to serve in the post-war Army overseas. Among the supporting cast who contribute much laughter are Harry Davenport as Albert, Percy Kilbride as Judge Whittaker, Adele Jergens as Allura, Sara Haden as Laura Pitts, Mabel Paige as Mrs. Whittaker, and Almira Sessions as Miss Downer.
The plot is a crazy one, and moves from a serious scenario in an Army hospital to a train ride from New York to Chicago, to the medical offices of the two doctors and more. The comedy is good throughout, but one scenario alone, toward the end of the film, makes it worth watching. The marrying judge plot has to be one of the funniest segments ever in a movie. It doesn't ruin it to describe it here, because watching it on film is so funny.
To set it up, Doc Lane (dad) and Kent are in Doc's office meeting with a local judge. They plan to trick Susan into marrying Kent. They need to convince the judge that she's unbalanced. Then they have to convince Susan that the judge is a client who is unbalanced. After Susan's secretary alerts her to something strange going on with her father, Susan goes into his office but Kent hides behind the door. Doc says, "The judge is just crazy about marrying people." And the judge says to Susan, "I wish you'd think about my marrying you." The dialog before, between and after this is hilarious.
Back in her office with Miss Pitts, Susan says, "In all my experience I've never come in contact with a mania like that." After the judge and Kent leave, Susan goes back to her father who then gives her the case. She'll go to the judge's home that night to begin therapy. So, she goes, expecting to treat his mania for marrying people. But the judge has informed his wife and their neighbor, Miss Downer – who will be witnesses, of the pending marriage of this unbalanced woman. Kent is to arrive later, just in time for the wedding. The dialog is some of the most ingenious, hilarious comedy ever written. The judge asks Susan, "Do you know why you're here?" Susan replies, "Yes, do you?" Susan gets the two women aside for a moment and says, "Your husband wanted to marry me this afternoon." Mrs. Whittaker says, "He still does." Miss Downer says, "That's what worries us." There is much, much more.
This is one over the top hilariously funny scenario in a very funny film. It was written and played in the 1940s when it was very funny. And, these decades later it is still very, very funny – and clean. I recommend it to those who have a sense of humor and who want a good laugh.
I don't know why some people think comedy has to be written, lived and acted only in the present milieu? That would make everything from the past as terrible as most of what passes as humor in recent years. Why would some people put today's restrictions on a film to strangle and stifle the genuine humor that it contained when made? A reviewer will refer to films made before "the code," as though that was a hindrance in itself to films. Then that same reviewer will try to impose a modern "code" that would restrict a film even more. Instead, should we not look for the humor as it was expressed and felt in those times past?
Who says the one or two headline stars of a film have to stand out with the best lines all the time? Who says a supporting cast can't steal the scene with occasional bursts of comedic brilliance? Who says that scripts and writers can't spread the humor around as appropriate and for the best laughs? Who says that the customs and mores of a time past can't be funny in the present -- or understood and appreciated as they were originally? Who says that the social customs that guided filmmaking in the past can't still be sources of hilarity and laughter today?
Maybe it's a sign of the times that so many people today can't laugh at themselves and the world around them. Perhaps we need to look more closely at the past when, in seriously tough and dour times, people were able to laugh at their foibles and those of others. And the movie makers were able to give them great fodder for laughter, as in this film, "She Wouldn't Say Yes." I laughed long and hard in several spots in this film. If you didn't on first viewing, watch it again. Turn off the critic and just watch the people and listen to the exchanges.
Look for the funny in a deadpan expression. Look for the hilarity in a seemingly flat response. Look for the humor in all the usual places as well. And look and watch for the laughter that lay hidden and ready to pounce from so many sharp turns or quick changes in scene of a fast and screwy script. This movie is a great howl throughout.